Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Rhymney Valley Joint Sewerage District) Bill [Lords].

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Lancaster and District Joint Hospital District) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (ROTHERHAM CORPORATION) BILL,

"to confirm a Scheme made by the Minister of Health under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, relating to the Rotherham Corporation," presented by Mr. Greenwood; and ordered (under Section 1 (9) of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (PADSTOW HARBOUR) BILL,

"to confirm a Scheme made by the Minister of Transport under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, relating to the Padstow Harbour Commissioners," presented by Mr. Parkinson; and ordered (under Section 1 (9) of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]

COLONIAL STOCK ACT, 1900.

Copy ordered:
of Treasury List of Colonial Stocks in respect of which the provisions of the Act are for the time being complied with."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

VOCATIONAL TRAINING.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many discharged soldiers desirous of re-entering civil life have been assisted in securing employment by the War Office during the last 12 months?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): I assume that the right hon. Member refers to direct assistance by means of the Vocational Training Centres. During the 12 months to 30th June, 2,281 soldiers were under training at those centres, and of this number, 1,636 were placed in civil employment on the completion of their training.

Sir K. WOOD: Is there any other assistance given apart from the centres?

Mr. SHAW: Yes, there are many semi-military organisations which give assistance to men in finding work.

BANDS.

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the estimated cost of the transfer of Army bands from the high pitch to the low pitch; and what are the grounds for the transfer?

Mr. SHAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 17th March last to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the change has taken place, and whether all the military bands have been transferred from one pitch to another?

Mr. SHAW: I understand that the changes are complete.

Mr. OLIVER: May I ask what is the result?

Mr. SHAW: The result is that the changes have been effected with the complete approbation of everybody concerned.

Mr. OLIVER: Does the change meet with the complete approbation of the civilian bands?

Mr. SHAW: I cannot speak for the civilians. I can only speak from my information as to the military bands.

Mr. PYBUS: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has the slightest knowledge of what this change of pitch will mean?

Mr. SHAW: Yes. I come from the north of England, where brass bands are a part of our lives; consequently I know.

ORDNANCE FACTORY, NOTTINGHAM.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what was the cost of construction and equipment of the National Ordnance Factory at the Meadows, Nottingham; what was the value of the premises and the price for the same paid by Messrs. Cammell, Laird and Company, Limited, under an agreement with the War Office, dated 16th November, 1923; and what reservations or restrictions were attached to the transfer, and whether such reservations or restrictions enable the promises to be utilised for providing employment now that Messrs. Cammell, Laird and Company, Limited, have closed down the works?

Mr. SHAW: The cost of construction and equipment was approximately £520,000. As regards the precise terms of the agreement with Messrs. Cammell, Laird and Company, it would be contrary to practice to disclose information of this kind. The conditions attached to the sale included the right of re-entry by the War Department in certain circumstances. If the present owners no longer require to retain the property for their use, it will be open to them to sell it subject to similar conditions.

Mr. KNIGHT: Are we to understand that this agreement with the War Office cannot be inspected by Members of Parliament? Secondly, may I ask, with regard to this firm, if there is any con-
dition which would prevent the re-employment in similar work on those premises of men who have worked there for many years?

Mr. SHAW: So far as scrutiny by individual Members of Parliament is concerned, I understand that it has always been the custom, not only of this Department but of all Departments, to keep the transactions as private and confidential as possible between the firm or firms with which they deal. In regard to the second part of the question, to the best of my knowledge—I speak with reservation—there is no reason, at all why people should not be employed at the same trade in these works, where anybody may carry on the work.

Mr. KNIGHT: Am I to understand that transactions involving the sale of public property cannot be inspected by Members of Parliament?

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought that that question had been answered.

OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (CAMPS).

Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether the annual camps of the Junior Division of the Officers Training Corps are being cancelled this year, and, if so, for what reason.

Mr. SHAW: Owing to the continued incidence of cerebro-spinal meningitis throughout the country, it is considered inadvisable to collect boys of a susceptible age in camps in large numbers. Boys who would have attended camp but for the cancellation, will, for purposes of "efficiency," be deemed to have attended.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

RIVER ESK.

Mr. MATHERS: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received the report of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Rivers Pollution Prevention concerning the condition of the River Esk, Midlothian; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the
latter part, a meeting is to be held in Edinburgh on Tuesday, the 4th August, when I shall discuss the report with representatives of local authorities in Midlothian in order that consideration may be given to the steps that should be taken to purify the river.

REGISTRY OF SASINES (CLERKS).

Sir PATRICK FORD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in view of the anxiety of the clerks in the Registry of Sasines as to their scale of emoluments as compared with that of the executive officers in England and the difficulty of arriving at any decision in the matter until the publication of the second Fleming report, whether he will take steps to expedite the publication of that report?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The Committee have lost no time in completing their inquiry, and I understand that the report is being sent to the printers for proof to-day. I shall do everything possible to expedite publication, when the report is received.

PREVENTIVE AND RESCUE WORK (REFORMATORY).

Mr. MATHERS: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the appeal made to him by representative workers interested in preventive and rescue work for the establishment of a reformatory for girls in Scotland has yet been considered; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. WESTWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend is not in a position meantime to state when it may be possible to re-establish a girls' reformatory school in Scotland.

GLASGOW GREEN (LAY PREACHERS).

Mr. MAXTON: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state what progress, if any, he has made in his negotiations with the town council of Glasgow on the question of free speech on Glasgow Green; and if he has taken any steps in connection with the liberation of men imprisoned for offences against the by-laws?

Mr. ADAMSON: I gave no undertaking to enter into negotiations with the town
council on the subject referred to. The matter is not one in which I have any jurisdiction, as the by-law in question was made by the town council under powers conferred by Statute, and was confirmed by the Sheriff. What I did undertake to do was to ascertain whether there was any difficulty in the way of the lay preachers, referred to in the question of 2nd July, obtaining permits to preach the Gospel on Glasgow Green at any time they so desired. I have done so, and I find that permits under the by-law are freely granted and very rarely refused. Accordingly, there seems no reason to doubt that, had they made application, the lay preachers would have obtained permits. As regards the last part of the question, the lay preachers were liberated on 8th July in due course of law, their fines having been paid.

Mr. MAXTON: I understood the right hon. Gentleman's previous reply. Will he not consider, having regard to the great public disturbance that this is causing in Glasgow, the desirability of entering into conversations with the Glasgow City Council, with a view to having these by-laws modified or abolished?

Mr. ADAMSON: I had already informed my hon. Friend that, whilst I am quite ready to discuss this matter, it is one in which I have no jurisdiction.

Mr. MAXTON: That is not what I am asking.

Sir P. FORD: May I ask if the Secretary of State for Scotland does not think that this proves the necessity of such a by-law, and that, considering the highly inflammable nature of religious opinion in certain parts of Glasgow, it is obvious that any lay preacher who was not going to do more than preach the Gospel and not be provocative, would have no hesitation in asking for a permit?

Mr. MAXTON: In regard to the question which has just been asked, is the Secretary of State for Scotland not aware that there was nothing of a sectarian nature in the work that these men were doing, but that they were simply preaching a plain Christian gospel, without any provocation whatever, and that they have been imprisoned for that?

Mr. SPEAKER: We are going beyond the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

COAL MINES ACT.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 10.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will state what steps, if any, have been taken to ensure that the Coal Mines Act, 1931, is being carried out in all districts?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): In England and Wales the Coal Mines Act, 1931, appears to be working smoothly. In Scotland, evidence has been collected in regard to alleged breaches of the law, and is being considered with a view to prosecution.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the Minister insist that no district or town shall take undue advantage of any other district or town?

Mr. SHINWELL: All I can say is that legislation has been provided, and that we expect that it will be operated.

EXPORT TRADE (FRANCE).

Mr. HANNON: 11.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will state the percentage decrease in the shipments of coal from this country to France during the first six months of 1931 as compared with the first six months of 1930 and the percentage increase in Polish, Dutch, and Belgian shipments of coal to France during the same period?

Mr. SHINWELL: As compared with the corresponding period of 1930, exports of coal from this country to France during the first six months of 1931 decreased by 18½ per cent. Omitting January, however, when shipments were affected by the dispute in South Wales, the decrease was 13 per cent. Coal shipments to France from Poland, Holland and Belgium during the first five months of 1931, the latest period for which information is available, increased by 40, 37 and 43 per cent., respectively.

Mr. HANNON: Are we to understand that, while the export of British coal is steadily diminishing, the export of coal from other exporting countries of Europe is on the increase?

Mr. SHINWELL: That appears to be so, from the figures.

Mr. MANDER: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to bring to the attention of the French Government the effect on em-
ployment in this country which will be caused by their proposal to reduce coal imports into France by a system of import licences; and what international engagements exist in connection with this matter?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): The French Government have now brought into force a system of restricting coal imports by admitting coal only under licence. His Majesty's Embassy have been in touch with the French authorities during the time when the scheme was in preparation with a view to safeguarding British interests. France is under no treaty obligation towards this country which would prevent her from imposing this restriction.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Therefore, the simple answer is that the right hon. Gentleman can do nothing?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir, that does not follow by any means.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. MANDER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to what extent the Empire Marketing Board, in accordance with the decision of the Imperial Conference, is carrying on publicity in oversea Empire countries; and whether the co-operation of such countries is being generally sought and obtained?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The terms of the Estimate for Empire Marketing for the current year have been amended in accordance with the recommendations of the Imperial Conference, and the Empire Marketing Board contemplate certain experiments in publicity overseas which they have approved as in keeping with the discussions of the Imperial Conference on this subject.

Mr. MANDER: Have they done anything yet in the way of reciprocity between this country and the Dominions except to raise their tariffs?

Mr. THOMAS: With regard to advertisement Overseas for this country, they are dealing with that side of the question now, and I hope they will succeed.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Will this country pay for its publicity overseas, or will it be paid for by the Dominions?

Mr. THOMAS: Under the terms of the Empire Marketing Board's grant, the money is found by this country, but I am equally open to receive any grants from the Dominions.

Mr. HANNON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the amount which has been expended by the Empire Marketing Board upon advertisements in the national Press and in trade and local papers during the 12 months to 31st May, 1931; and if he can make any estimate of the value of these sections of the Press, respectively, in arousing public interest in the sale of British and Dominion produce?

Mr. THOMAS: The total amount expended from the Empire Marketing Fund upon newspaper advertisements during the 12 months to 31st May, 1931, was £23,758 4s. 1d. Of this amount, £11,545 was in respect of advertisements inserted in the national Press, and £12,213 in respect of insertions in trade and local papers. The Board are satisfied that all the media employed have contributed towards increasing public interest in the sale of Empire produce, but it would obviously be difficult to draw distinctions as to their relative value.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour, through the experts in his Department, to ascertain the comparative merits of the respective methods of advertisement employed by the Empire Marketing Board, so that possibly economies might be effected in the total expenditure?

Mr. THOMAS: This is like most other matters that are referred to experts; in the main, common sense determines it, and not experts.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Are we to understand that the expense of advertising for the Dominions in this country is entirely borne by the taxpayers of this country?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly. As I have explained repeatedly, when criticisms have been made about the Old Country's contribution to the Empire, every copper expended by the Empire Marketing
Board is found by the British taxpayer, and in the main it is directed to advertising Empire goods.

Captain CAZALET: Has any money been spent on advertising British goods in the papers in the Dominions?

Mr. THOMAS: That is the same question which was put to me earlier. The change made at the last Imperial Conference enables us to do that now, but, again, it is a very difficult matter to say to the Dominions, "We want you to advertise British goods"; and, if they are competing in the same goods, there is a reluctance to do so.

Mr. MANDER: Have the Dominions made any contribution?

CANADA AND AUSTRALIA (AGREEMENT).

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how the new commercial treaty concluded between Canada and Australia affects the amount of Imperial preference into either country now enjoyed by parts of the British Empire other than the two Dominions concerned; whether he can give any specific instances of how this new system will work; and whether the Government proposes to take into consideration the effect which commercial treaties of this kind will have on the prospects of closer Empire trade?

Mr. THOMAS: I have not yet received the full text of the agreement, and in the meantime I do not think that I can usefully comment on the points raised by the hon. Member in the first part of his question. The answer to the last part of his question is in the affirmative.

INDUSTRIAL SURVEYS.

Sir K. WOOD: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make a statement as to the progress of the surveys in certain industrial areas and in which areas such surveys have now been commenced?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Satisfactory progress has been made in all the areas mentioned in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. H. Gibson) on the 17th March last. As I have already explained, in view of the large amount of material to be examined, some months must elapse before results can be expected.

BANKERS' INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.

Mr. MANDER: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what results have been obtained through the setting up of the Bankers' Industrial Development Company; how many applications for financial assistance have been approved, and to what extent; and whether any applications are under consideration at the present time?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Despite the unfavourable conditions for industrial issues since the formation of the Bankers' Industrial Development Company, it has made two public issues in connection with the rationalisation of the basic industries, namely, an issue of £1,000,000 5 per cent. debentures for National Shipbuilders Security, Limited, and an issue of £2,000,000 6½ per cent. debentures for the Lancashire Cotton Corporation, Limited. I am informed that other proposals have been, and are, under examination by Securities Management Trust, with a view to the framing of schemes which might be submitted to the Bankers' Industrial Development Company.

Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied with the working of the company? Does he not think some altered system is necessary?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is a difficult question. I think it would be impossible to express dissatisfaction, because all its operations have been undertaken in a time of profound industrial depression when there was really not a fair chance.

Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that over 90 per cent. of the Lancashire Cotton Corporation issue was left with the underwriters?

Mr. GRAHAM: That may be, But that point is really covered by what I said in reply to the preceding supplementary question.

READY-MADE CLOTHING (IMPORTS).

Major GLYN: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the average value of ready-made suits of clothes, part woollen, imported from Poland?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: During the first six months of 1931 the total declared value of men's and boys' suits, coats, vests and
trousers of wool or wool mixed with other materials imported into the United Kingdom and registered as consigned from Poland (including Dantzig) was £25,677. I have no information as to the average value of these imports.

Major GLYN: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of imported ready-made clothing into the United Kingdom during the past 12 months and the countries of manufacture?

Mr. GRAHAM: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the imports during 1930. Similar particulars for a more recent period of 12 months are not available.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there has been an increase?

Mr. GRAHAM: There has been an increase within very recent times.

Following is the statement:

The following table shows the total declared value of outer garments (not hosiery) imported into the United Kingdom during the year 1930, distinguishing the principal countries whence con-signed:—


Description and countries whence consigned and Declared Value.


Apparel (not of fur):



Outer Garments (not hosiery):




£


Overcoats, mackintoshes, oil skins and the like
73,087


Leather clothing
23,034


Men's and boys' (suits, coats, vests, trousers, excluding overcoats)
87,104


Women's and girls' garments of woven fabrics (Costumes, dresses, etc.)
3,300,368


Other Outer garments (aprons, overalls, etc.)
929,661


Total
4,413,254




Of which consigned from:

£


Germany
…
1,419,191


France
…
1,275,747


Belgium
…
455,649


Austria
…
447,977


Switzerland
…
241,910


United States of America
…
187,232


Japan
…
124,745


Czechoslovakia
…
65,797


Netherlands
…
54,886


Italy
…
52,985


British India
…
14,977


Canada
…
12,370


Poland (including Dantzig)
…
10,777


Other countries
…
49,011

GLOVE INDUSTRY.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received from the joint industrial council of the glove industry the figures of unemployment in the industry subsequent to the lapse of the Safeguarding Duty?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 30th June to the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. L. Smith), of which I am sending him a copy.

GERMANY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what were the total figures of the German imports and exports for the month of June last, reduced to sterling?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: During the month of June, 1931, the value of the imports for home consumption into Germany, converted into sterling at the approximate par rate of exchange, amounted to £29,730,000 and domestic exports to £36,550,000, including deliveries on account of Reparations valued at £1,630,000.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not this show a very heavy trade balance in favour of Germany—a very large excess of exports over imports?

Mr. GRAHAM: No doubt there is a balance, but I need not warn my hon and gallant Friend against making deductions.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do not these figures indicate that Britain is the best, customer of Germany?

Mr. GRAHAM: The figures relate to all German trade and not merely the trade with this country.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 56.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can give figures for the first six months of 1931 and 1930 of transactions in respect of exports to Germany passing through the Export Credits Department; and whether the terms offered in respect of the export trade to Germany are as favourable as those in respect of exports to Soviet Russia?

Mr. GILLET (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): During the first six months of 1930 the Export Credits
Guarantee Department contracted to guarantee a proportion of credits amounting to £154,828 in connection with exports to Germany. The corresponding amount for the first six months of 1931 was £90,013. The terms upon which guarantees are given, whether for Germany, Soviet Russia or other countries, vary from case to case and from time to time, and it is impossible to make comparisons between the facilities given in different circumstances for different countries.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the facilities granted to Soviet Russia are greater than those granted to Germany?

Mr. GILLETT: No, I think that it will be quite impossible for me to answer that question, especially at the present time.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I take it that we can rely upon the Government always to favour Russia, if possible.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 57.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has any information which will show what has been the effect of the present financial crisis in Germany on the export trade from Great Britain to that country?

Mr. GILLETT: I am afraid that at this stage it is too early to form an opinion on the matter.

RUSSIA.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the number and description of tanks, armoured vehicles, and other instruments of war exported to Soviet Russia during the last six months, with a comparison for the previous six months, and the number and description of such orders as are now in hand of similar instruments of war?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Separate particulars regarding the exports of tanks and of armoured vehicles are not recorded in the trade accounts. The total declared value of the exports of military, naval and ordnance stores and appliances other than arms and ammunition registered as consigned to the Soviet Union during the first six months of
1931 was £72,966, the corresponding figure for the preceding six months being £40,251. As regards the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer which was given to the hon. Member on 15th July.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give me a reply to the last part of the question, whether orders are now in hand?

Mr. GRAHAM: I told the hon. Gentleman previously that I could not give information, even if I had it, regarding the orders of individual firms.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: What amount or number of these engines of war are sent to Russia under the guise of agricultural tractors?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: If the Russian Government were to order a battleship here, would it be turned down?

Duchess of ATHOLL: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state the quantities and the value of all imports into this country from the Soviet Union in the first four months of 1931 or, failing this, for the first three months; and if he will give the same particulars for the years 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1930?

Mr. GILLETT: I would refer the Noble Lady to the reply given to her questions on the 26th June respecting the total imports and details of the principal commodities for the years 1928, 1929 and 1930 and the first three months of 1931. Detailed particulars of the imports from the Soviet Union during 1927 are given on pages 124 to 126 of Volume IV of the Annual Statement of Trade, 1929.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Cannot the figures sent to me on 26th June by the President of the Board of Trade be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT as, I think, they will be of considerable interest to numbers of people?

Mr. GILLETT: I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend to the Noble Lady's suggestion.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, when a
question is asked in this House and is answered by the sending of a statement, it is not the usual custom that that statement, which is an answer, should be given the same publicity as the question, by being published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. May I ask, in the interests of publicity, why it was that the answer given by way of statement to the Noble Lady on the 26th June was not published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought that was the usual custom.

Sir D. HERBERT: I am asking for your assistance, to see that that custom is followed in future, because in this particular case the answer, in which several of us were interested, was not published.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask whether that statement cannot now be published, together with the answer which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow?

Mr. GILLETT: I do not know why the statement was not published, but I will certainly have the matter looked into and see if it can be published as desired.

TRADE FACILITIES GUARANTEES (SUGAR-BEET COMPANIES).

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which were the sugar-beet companies in respect to which the Treasury has been called upon to make good its guarantees under the Trade Facilities Acts to the extent of £545,000, of which £162,000 has been written off as irrecoverable; and the amount involved in each case?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The irrecoverable loss was in connection with the Orchard Sugar Company, Limited, which went into liquidation on the 30th March, 1928. In accordance with the invariable practice under the Trade Facilities Acts, I regret that I cannot give details of the other cases, but I may say that the reason for the advances was the failure of a company to pay off capital as rapidly as required by its agreement. No default has taken place on interest and the Treasury is receiving interest on the sums it advanced.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FRUIT RESEARCH, EAST MALLING (EMPIRE WORKERS).

Mr. HANNON: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the scheme for the accommodation of a number of fruit research workers from oversea Empire countries at East Mailing Research Station is now operative; and from what oversea Empire countries and in what numbers has provision for research workers been made?

Mr. THOMAS: Laboratory accommodation for six oversea workers is now available at the station. Following the recent Dominion tour by the director, several oversea Governments are known to be anxious to send workers to the station for the two-year period contemplated under the scheme, but, owing to the economic depression, they have not yet been able to make the necessary financial arrangements. These difficulties are engaging the attention of the Empire Marketing Board. In the meantime, a number of oversea workers are visiting the station for short periods.

DAIRY RESEARCH.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the report on the survey of dairy research recently presented to the Empire Marketing Board is yet available; and whether the report has been communicated to the Ministry of Health?

Mr. THOMAS: The report to which the hon. and gallant Member refers will be published in about two months' time. It has not yet been communicated to the Ministry of Health, but a copy will be sent to that Department immediately on publication.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the importance of these various Departments each being kept informed of what the others are doing?

Mr. THOMAS: I believe that contact is established, and it is very necessary.

POTATOES (IMPORTS).

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the quantity and value of potatoes
imported into this country during the months of April, May and June, respectively, this year?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As stated in the monthly accounts relating to trade and navigation, the total imports of potatoes into the United Kingdom registered during the months of April, May and June, 1931, were 1,342,000 cwts. valued at £497,000; 1,958,000 cwts. valued at £1,217,000; and 2,835,000 cwts. valued at £2,141,000, respectively.

Mr. WILLIAMS: How does the Government propose to deal with this under the Marketing Bill?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is a question for the Minister of Agriculture.

Captain CAZALET: Do the figures show an increase over last year?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, they are much in excess of the corresponding period.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL GAS POISONING.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by the Committee on Coal Gas Poisoning which was appointed in June, 1929?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The Committee reported in January, 1930, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the report.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUSINESS NAMES (REGISTRATION).

Commander BELLAIRS: 24
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) in view of the fact that Russian Oil Products, Limited, the Central Association of Flax Growers, Limited, Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance Company, Limited, Centrosoyos, Limited, Anglo-Soviet Shipping Company, Limited, the Moscow Narodny Bank, Limited, and the White Sea Timber Trust, Limited, have no diplomatic immunity, whether it is intended to prosecute them for not having complied with the Registration of Business Names Act, 1916, Section 2;
(2) in view of the fact that Section 7, Registration of Business Names Act, 1916, imposes a fine of five pounds on every partner of the firm for every day of default in registration of names and particulars, whether he can state what is
the total fine that the directors of the companies acting as general agents for Soviet Russia have made themselves liable for through failure to comply with the Act of Parliament in regard to registration;
(3) how many of the companies acting as general agents for Soviet Russia have failed to comply with the Registration of Business Names Act, 1916, Section 2; whether the matter has been the subject of any correspondence; and, if so, on what date?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I cannot at present add anything to the answer which my hon. Friend gave the hon. and gallant Member on 15th July.

Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us as to when he will be able to give an answer; and will he bear in mind my extreme anxiety to get an answer before the holidays?

Mr. GRAHAM: I think I have already indicated, or, at all events, I indicate now, that this raises certain legal questions. Under Section 2 of the Act, inquiries have been addressed to these companies, and I will lose no time, but it is difficult to specify a date.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that a common informer may act in the meantime?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not the case that only the Board of Trade can initiate prosecutions under this Act?

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Act was brought into force for the specific purpose of dealing with cases of this kind?

Mr. GRAHAM: That may be so, but I have already informed the House that I am making inquiries under Section 2 of the Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANY LAW.

Mr. MARCUS: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to compel every limited company to mention on all stationery the authorised nominal capital and the amount fully or partly paid up and
similar details relating to the authorised amount of debentures?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am not satisfied that legislation on these lines is required, but my hon. Friend's suggestion has been noted.

Mr. MARCUS: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation for the purpose of making members of private limited companies personally liable for any amount of the nominal capital not taken up, so that all the members shall be jointly and severally liable for any such part of the capital which is not taken up or not paid up?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am not prepared to undertake to introduce legislation for this purpose.

Mr. KELLY: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will, when in due course setting up a committee to amend the Companies Act, 1929, also set up a departmental committee to examine the methods of the London Stock Exchange, with a view to embodying in an amended Companies Act recommendations which would bring the granting of stock exchange quotations under the control of the Act, so that investors may be protected against losses and unfair trading, such as have been shown in the courts to be possible owing to the committee of the London Stock Exchange not possessing adequate authority without the support of Parliament?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend is not altogether satisfied as to the need for the suggested inquiry by a departmental committee but will bear the point in mind. The general question of setting up a committee to consider the amendment of the Companies Act is for the Board of Trade.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is is not very obvious in view of the tremendous losses that things are not as they were?

Mr. KELLY: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the conditions attaching to the flotation of securities other than those of a trustee or gilt-edged nature, he will consider introducing legislation under which the powers of the London Stock Exchange to
grant quotations to new public companies will be limited by prior certification of an examining body under the control of the economic advisers to the Government and designed to protect investors?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I fear that my right hon. Friend is not satisfied that legislation on the lines suggested is called for.

Mr. KELLY: Is this matter under consideration, as suggested in regard to the previous question?

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that the London Stock Exchange is one of the best managed institutions of its kind in the world?

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.

Mr. DAY: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give particulars of any changes that have taken place during the previous 12 months in the members of the statutory committee appointed under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The only change since my reply to the hon. Member of 10th February last on this subject is the resignation of one of the members not representing the film industry, that is one of those appointed under Section 30 (1) (d) of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927.

Mr. DAY: How long are these appointments for?

Mr. GRAHAM: I think they are for two or three years, but I should like to verify the point.

Mr. REMER: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the report, a copy of which has been sent to him, of the commission which has recently been held in Canada inquiring into the Americanisation of the cinemas in that country; if he will state to what extent this report agrees with the report which has been sent to him by the London Trades Council; and what action he intends to take?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have not yet received a copy of the report of the Canadian Royal Commission.

Mr. REMER: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive it?

Mr. GRAHAM: All I have seen up to this point is a Press reference a few days ago. I will try to get a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 37.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Charles Harold Nias, of Ashdene, High Street, West Mersea, Essex, who is medically certified as being unfit to go about alone as a result of War disability; and if he will state the reason why a grant of constant attendance allowance has been refused in this case?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): While occasional help is necessary in this case, I am advised that as a result of a previous examination the man's condition is not such as to enable it to be medically certified that a constant attendant is required. I am, however, calling for a further report on the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSFER OF WORKERS).

Sir K. WOOD: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour if steps are still being taken to promote industrial transference by placing persons from the depressed areas in employment elsewhere; and how many persons were transferred in the last four weeks for which figures are available?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. During four weeks ended 6th July, 2,083 persons were transferred from the depressed areas either direct or after a course at a centre.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "REVENGE."

Major Sir HERBERT CAYZER: 39.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when His Majesty's Ship "Revenge," now refitting at Devonport, will pay off so as to enable the Portsmouth men to return to their own depot, having in view
that the refit at Devonport instead of the manning port has entailed longer separation from their families for these ratings who have already been away so long, and also the additional expense involved to them and their families?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The date for paying off His Majesty's Ship "Revenge" has not yet been decided, but all ratings have been given the foreign service leave to which they were entitled. The complement of the ship has been reduced to the minimum requirements necessary for maintenance and refit while at Devonport.

GERMAN WAR VESSELS (VISIT).

Sir H. CAYZER: 41.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in order to return the honours accorded to His Majesty's Ships "Dorsetshire" and "Norfolk" on their recent visit to Kiel, an invitation is to be extended by His Majesty's Government to the German Government for German war vessels to visit British waters; and whether the possibility of their visiting Portsmouth during Navy week has been considered?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The recent informal British visit was in the nature of a return visit for German visits to Dominion and Colonial ports. It is hoped that visits to the United Kingdom will be paid by German ships when their programmes permit. Any proposals for such visits would be made by the German Government.

Sir H. CAYZER: When that happens, will the right hon. Gentleman bear Portsmouth in mind?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am sure the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Cayzer) will not let us forget.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that Plymouth is much better.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

Major GLYN: 40.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will prepare a return showing in their various classes the warships of the following countries, indicating how far to date the building programmes have been carried out or
modified, Great Britain, United States of America, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan: ships in commission, laid down and building, and scrapped in the years 1918, 1925 and 1931?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The preparation of a return of this nature involves a great deal of labour for which staff is not provided. In view of the fact that all the information asked for in the question is, with very few exceptions, available in returns already published, I do not think I should be justified in ordering such a return to be prepared.

Major GLYN: Would the right hon. Gentleman send me the reference to the particular documents?

Mr. ALEXANDER: A good deal of the information will be found in a Blue Book which the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows of, the Annual Return of Fleets, which has been published regularly since 1921.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

FACTORY INSPECTORS (PROMOTION).

Major HERBERT EVANS: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of officers above the rank of inspector now employed on the factory inspection staff; whether all such officers have had service as inspectors; and whether it is intended to adhere to this practice in all future promotions?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): If my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the Chief Inspector and his deputies and the superintending inspectors, the number of officers now employed in these ranks is 15 and all of them had previous service as inspectors. As regards the last part of the question, I prefer that these posts should always be filled by promotions within the inspectorate, but in making appointments, particularly of the higher officers, it is necessary in each case to take into account the particular circumstances, and I am afraid it is not possible for me to bind myself and my successors in the way suggested.

Major EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to neglect altogether the question of practical experience?

Mr. CLYNES: Certainly not. I think, if my hon. and gallant Friend reads my answer, he will see that the contrary is my intention.

Sir A. POWNALL: Are people ever brought in from outside or is it always promotion?

Mr. CLYNES: The. latter part of my reply covers the supplementary question.

LAND VALUE TAX (STAFF).

Brigadier-General BROWN: 47 and 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether any extra officials are to be employed on valuation of land values before the 1st January, 1932; if so, what qualifications are required of them and how are they selected;
(2) whether any extra officials are being taken on before the 1st January, 1932, for the purpose of being trained in land valuation; and, if so, how is their training being carried out?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It will be necessary to recruit a staff of temporary valuers, valuation assistants, and draughtsmen. Candidates for appointment as valuers or valuation assistants must have had experience in the valuation of land, and applicants for appointment as draughtsmen must be capable land surveyors; the selection will be carried out by the Board of Inland Revenue, and candidates will, on appointment to the Valuation Office, be instructed in the method of carrying out their duties.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Considering the importance of the system of valuation which has to be carried out, are no regulations being issued or training given to those about to carry out the work?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have already said that these men, on appointment, will be instructed by the Inland Revenue in the method of carrying out their duties.

Sir A. POWNALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say approximately how many officials are being taken on in this way?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I could not say without notice.

Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Gentleman make an announcement of the condi-
tions under which valuers will be appointed by the Treasury?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think that the conditions are in the answer.

Mr. HANNON: Surely some public announcement will be made?

Major GLYN: What grade will these officers fill, what will be their appropriate approximate salary, and will they be temporary?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down that question, I will look into it and see if I can give the information.

CONSULAR SERVICE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what increase, if any, has taken place in the consular service abroad during the last two years; and whether it is proposed to make further increases and in which countries?

Mr. GILLETT: There has been no material change in the numbers of the Consular Service in the last two years; with regard to the second part of the question, the matter is under constant review.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRUCK ACTS (PROSECUTIONS).

Major EVANS: 43.
asked the Home Secretary if he will furnish the number of prosecutions under the Truck Acts instituted by inspectors of factories during 1930; the number of convictions; and the average penalty imposed?

Mr. CLYNES: Two firms were prosecuted for breaches of these Acts in 1930. One of them was convicted on two charges and fined £1 on each charge. In the other case where three charges were taken, the prosecution was dismissed.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is this an increase on previous years, or is it just normal?

Mr. CLYNES: I cannot answer the question without notice, but I can say that there are very few offences now committed under those Acts.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with those Acts?

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND VALUE TAX (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether co-operative societies registered under the Friendly Societies Acts will be treated as registered friendly societies for the purposes of Sub-section (1) (g) of Section 24 of the Finance Act?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No, Sir. The exemption in question does not extend beyond friendly societies.

Sir K. WOOD: Have not the co-operative societies made any complaints about this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. DAY: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total amount of the losses to public funds arising from defalcations of collectors of Income Tax during the past 10 years?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The gross amount of the deficiencies in that period was £105,459, of which £79,866 was recovered from the defaulters or from guarantors, leaving £25,593 as the loss to public funds.

Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say whether the majority of these defalcations did not take place by part-time employés.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should certainly require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS (HOLIDAYS).

Mr. DAY: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether all public service employés in Government industrial establishments who have completed a full year's service now receive a weekly holiday, with pay, plus leave with pay on ordinary public holidays; and will he give particulars?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Yes, Sir. Employés in Government industrial establishments who have completed a full year's service are entitled to a minimum of six days leave with pay plus five paid public holidays. Arrangements for giving effect to the rule vary in different Departments according to the exigencies of the public service.

Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say whether any arrangements have been made for other employés of the Government to have holidays with pay?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think I am right in saying that all employés of the Government have now their annual holiday. The extension to industrial workers which was made about two years ago completed the practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

AERIAL SIGNPOSTS.

Mr. EVERARD: 54.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has under consideration any scheme of aerial signposts?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): The answer is in the negative. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 26th November last.

LIGHT AEROPLANE CLUBS (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. EVERARD: 55.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many fatal accidents there have been during instruction to pupils at light aeroplane clubs during each of the last three years?

Mr. MONTAGUE: During the year ended 20th July, 1931, there were no fatal accidents to pupils under instruction at light aeroplane clubs; during each of the two previous years there were two fatal accidents.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH-EAST ENGLAND ELECTRICITY SCHEME.

Mr. TURTON: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can give an estimate of the cost of the pylon scheme between Malton and Whitby if it followed the railway line between Malton and Whitby and did not cross the hill-tops?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): I understand that the estimated total cost of the line between Malton and Whitby as designed to be carried out by the Central Electricity Board is £63,000, that if the railway line were followed the extra cost of constructional works would be at least £16,000; and that if by crossing the hill-tops is meant a route on the west side of the
river, the extra constructional cost would be at least £10,000. I also understand that both alternative routes pass through country inaccessible to contractors' lorries unless proper roads and several bridges were constructed. This would of course involve additional expense.

Mr. TURTON: Will the hon. Gentleman consider constructing the line from Norton to Whitby instead of from Malton to Whitby in order to preserve the beauty of the moorland scenery between Malton and Whitby?

Mr. PARKINSON: I take it that all those points have been taken into consideration by the Board.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Is not this a hypothetical question, "if it goes a certain way?"

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems quite an ordinary question.

Mr. TURTON: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated cost of the Malton-Whitby pylon scheme, including the cost of the transformer substations, pylons, and line; and whether the scheme provides for a double or single line?

Mr. PARKINSON: I understand that the total cost of the line, which is a double circuit, including transformer stations and pylons, is approximately £63,000.

Mr. TURTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say to how many people this will give electric light at a cost of £63,000?

Mr. PARKINSON: No, not without notice of the question.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member say if the material is all British or not?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what the business will be on Friday, and for what purpose it is intended to move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule to-night?

Mr. THOMAS: It is proposed to dispose of the first four Orders on the Order Paper down to and including the Army and Air Expenditure, 1929, Committee. The business for Friday will be considera-
tion of Lords Amendments to the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, and, if time permits, other Orders. With regard to to-morrow's business, representations have been received and it is proposed to take the Public Works Loans Bill immediately after the conclusion of Supply and before the Report stage of the Consumers' Council Money Resolution.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hot,. Gentleman aware that an undertaking was given that the Public Works Loan Bill, which involves £30,000,000, will be taken at such an hour as to give time for proper consideration?

Mr. THOMAS: I am told that no undertaking was given. I understand that my hon. Friend said that he hoped it would be possible to do that, but circumstances have not enabled us to do it.

Mr. SAMUEL: In view of the fact that we allowed one stage of this Bill to go through on the understanding that we should get proper time to discuss it, could not the right hon. Gentleman have the Bill put down as the first Order on Friday?

Mr. THOMAS: I understand that it was put down for last Friday, but at the wish of the Opposition it was not taken.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is not so.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the second Order which he proposes to take after Eleven o'clock, the Small Landholders and Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill, Lords' Amendments, involves many points of principle, and can he give an undertaking that it shall not be taken at too late an hour?

Mr. THOMAS: I hope the House generally will realise that we are trying to work to a programme, in accordance with the promise made that we shall rise next week. I hope that the First Order today will not take the time that is generally anticipated.

Mr. O. LEWIS: In the event of the Debate on the Unemployment Insurance Bill being prolonged into the small hours of the morning, does the right hon. Gentleman still propose to take the Financial Resolution of the Consumers' Council Bill, no matter what hour it may be?

Mr. THOMAS: I cannot conceive the first contingency, but, even if that were so, I understand that this business is absolutely essential if the House is to rise next week.

Mr. SAMUEL: In regard to the Public Works Loan Bill, we do not intend to be hostile, but it is a matter which involves £30,000,000, and there is no real hurry for the Bill. It can well stand over until we come back again. Some £15,000,000 is still unexpended. Why force it through the House at midnight?

Mr. THOMAS: There is no attempt to force anything on the House. It may equally be said that a number of other matters which are equally urgent and important will have to be discussed when we come back.

Mr. SMITHERS: In regard to the Public Works Loans Bill, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the report of the Commissioners for this year is not yet published, and that it

would be much better to put off the discussion on the Bill until the report is available? I have tried to get a copy of the report, but it is not available. Is it fair to bring a Bill of this kind before the House when the report of the Commissioners is not in the hands of hon. Members?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not know anything of the details, but I cannot conceive of anything done by this side of the House which will be construed as unfair.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Lord Advocate to go away for their holidays?

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. J. H. Thomas.]

The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 139.

Division No. 442.]
AYES.
[3.38 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Egan, W. H.
Isaacs, George


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Elmley, Viscount
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
England, Colonel A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Alpass, J. H.
Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Ammon, Charles George
Foot, Isaac
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Arnott, John
Freeman, Peter
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Barnes, Alfred John
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Kelly, W. T.


Barr, James
Gibbins, Joseph
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Batey, Joseph
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gillett, George M.
Knight, Holford


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Glassey, A. E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Benson, G.
Gossling, A. G.
Lang, Gordon


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gould, F.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Bowen, J. W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gray, Milner
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Bromfield, William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Brothers, M.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lawrence, Susan


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Burgess, F. G.
Groves, Thomas E.
Lawson, John James


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Leach, W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Chater, Daniel
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lees, J.


Church, Major A. G.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Leonard, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Logan, David Gilbert


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Longbottom, A. W.


Compton, Joseph
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Longden, F.


Cowan, D. M.
Haycock, A. W.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hayday, Arthur
Lunn, William


Daggar, George
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Dallas, George
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Herriotts, J.
McElwee, A.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hicks, Ernest George
McEntee, V. L.


Day, Harry
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
McKinlay, A.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Gevan)


Dukes, C.
Hoffman, P. C.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Duncan, Charles
Hollins, A.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Ede, James Chuter
Hopkin, Daniel
McShane, John James


Edmunds, J. E.
Horrabin, J. F.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Stamford, Thomas W.


Manning, E. L.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Strauss, G. R.


Mansfield, W.
Raynes, W. R.
Sullivan, J.


March, S.
Richards, R.
Sutton, J. E.


Marcus, M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Marley, J.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Marshall, Fred
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Mathers, George
Ritson, J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Matters, L. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Tillett, Ben


Messer, Fred
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Tinker, John Joseph


Middleton, G.
Romeril, H. G.
Toole, Joseph


Mills, J. E.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Tout, W. J.


Montague, Frederick
Rowson, Guy
Townend, A. E.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Morley, Ralph
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Vaughan, David


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Viant, S. P.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sanders, W. S.
Walker, J.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sawyer, G. F.
Wallace, H. W.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Scott, James
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Muff, G.
Scrymgeour, E.
Watkins, F. C.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Scurr, John
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Murnin, Hugh
Sexton, Sir James
Wellock, Wilfred


Nathan, Major H. L.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Naylor, T. E.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sherwood, G. H.
West, F. R.


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Shield, George William
Westwood, Joseph


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Shillaker, J. F.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Paling, Wilfrid
Shinwell, E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Palmer, E. T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Simmons, C. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Perry, S. F.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Potts, John S.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)



Price, M. P.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pybus, Percy John
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. William


Quibell, D. J. K.
Sorensen, R.
Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Albery, Irving James
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Atholl, Duchess of
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Balniel, Lord
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Meller, R. J.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Everard, W. Lindsay
Millar, J. D.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Ferguson, Sir John
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Ford, Sir P. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Frece, Sir Walter de
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Briscoe, Richard George
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Brown Ernest (Leith)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peake, Captain Osbert


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Penny, Sir George


Buchan, John
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Butler, R. A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Campbell, E. T.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Remer, John R.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Salmon, Major I.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Christle, J. A.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Savery, S. S.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cranborne, Viscount
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)




Thompson, Luke
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Womersley, W. J.


Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wayland, Sir William A.



Todd, Capt. A. J.
White, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Turton, Robert Hugh
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyan
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Victor Warrender.


Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

STERILIZATION.

Major CHURCH: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable mental defectives to undergo sterilizing operations or sterilizing treatment upon their own application, or that of their spouses or parents or guardians; and for purposes connected therewith.
I realise, and those associated with me realise, that in making this request we are asking the House to do something which may be regarded as in advance of public opinion. That in itself is a difficulty. We realise that we have to convert a large section of the people of this country to a full appreciation of what we propose to do with those who are in every way a burden to their parents, a misery to themselves and in my opinion a menace to the social life of the community. I should be failing m my duty to the House if I did not state that in my opinion, although perhaps not in the opinion of those associated with me, this Bill is merely a first step in order that the community as a whole should be able to make an experiment on a small scale so that later on we may have the benefit of the results and experience gained in order to come to conclusions before bringing in a Bill for the compulsory sterilisation of the unfit.
The Bill is based on the willingness of those suffering mental defects to undergo an operation which will prevent them from bringing children into the world. The Bill provides every reasonable safeguard for the voluntary principle. In the first place, the patients themselves must consent to the operation. In the second place, the spouse or parents or guardian of the defective must agree to the operation. In the third place, there must be the consent of the Board of Control; and, finally, the operation can be carried out only after approval has been given by a judicial authority, such as a bench of magistrates. The operation is not the mutilation usually associated with sterilisation. I need not go into the details, except to say that it is devised in order that the emotional life of the patient shall not be affected in the slightest degree,
but that the patient shall be effectively prevented from bringing children into the world. There are various operations on the male. There is a very simple operation which is done in five minutes, usually with a local anaesthetic. There is no danger attached to it. Out of 5,000 odd cases dealt with in this way in California, there has been only one death, and that was under the anaesthetic. In the case of women it is a rather more serious operation, but no more dangerous than an operation for appendicitis.
The Bill has been prepared in consultation with the Eugenics Society. For many years, with the active support and co-operation of social workers, members of the medical profession, economists and biologists, the society has attempted to focus public attention on a problem, failure to solve which can tend only to the progressive deterioration of our stock. A few statistics are available regarding the progressive deterioration of the stock in this country alone in the report of the Mental Deficiency Committee set up by the Board of Education and the Board of Control in 1925. The report was published in 1929. They estimated that the certifiable mental defectives in the country were 300,000, of whom 25,000, or only one-twelfth, were in institutions. Another 50,000 were under the control of guardians. They had no recommendation to make with regard to the whole of the remainder, but they recommended that institutions should be provided for one-third of them, that is to say, for 100,000. That in itself would be a tremendous drain on the public purse and would tax the capacity of local authorities for many years to come. But in any case, even if you provide institutions for 100,000, what about the 200,000?
Only last week I asked a question of the President of the Board of Education regarding what happened to the children who left the schools for the feebleminded. He replied that in some cases the local authorities had after-care arrangements. But I can assure him that in one of the largest local educa-
tion authorities in this country, namely London, there is no systematic aftercare of the mental defectives. On the authority of headmasters of some of these schools, these children go out into the world at the age of 16, and within two or three years, so I was assured by one of them, at least 25 per cent. of them have been "up," either before magistrates' courts or children's courts in various parts of the Metropolis; and he said also that in the normal way, as far as he could ascertain from the statistics and information which he was able to compile in the five or six years during which he had been head of an institution, of those that left, within three or four years they had married and had children or they had to be married and they still had children.
Of course, it may be urged that mere sterilisation is not enough. It may be urged that that will not cure the problem of mental disease. We are not suggesting that it would, but we are suggesting that the knowledge which has been obtained and the statistics which have been compiled as to the ancestry of mental defectives in a number of different States and countries, show that anything from 45 to 80 per cent. of the mental defectives in those various States and countries are so because they have inherited defective germ plasm. We are suggesting that it would be advisable to take the risk and sterilise all the defectives in the hope that by a generation or so we shall reduce the mental defectives to measurable quantities.
I would respectfully urge the House to give permission for the Bill to be printed and to come up for Second Reading in order that the Bill as a whole may be read by hon. Members. I suggest that there should be no opposition to it on First Reading in order that Members as a whole can become acquainted with the provisions of the Bill. Necessarily I can only briefly sketch a Bill which, so far from violating the laws of God and morality, attempts to do something which is supported by large bodies of social workers, 53 local councils, a whole mass of opinion in the medical profession and the scientific profession, and a whole mass of biological opinion. Fifty-three local boroughs has said definitely that they are in favour of the
principle embodied in the Bill. I beg the House to give permission for the introduction of the Bill, not merely because of the authoritative weight behind it, not merely because it is brought forward as a tentative and experimental Measure, but also because hon. Members themselves should have an opportunity to examine the Bill and to study the documentary evidence in the reports issued by various bodies, and so realise fully the importance of the problem due to the increase of mental defectives in our midst.

Dr. MORGAN: I rise to ask the House not to give leave for the introduction of this Bill. The House has heard a harrowing tale which is mostly moonshine. The Bill is said to be in advance of public opinion, but it is really in advance of common sense and ordinary sanity. With regard to mental defectives there is said to be an increase rising crescendo in geometrical progression to overwhelm the world in an avalanche of mental backwardness, and to lure the progressive world headlong into an abyss of degenerate civilisation. We have just heard a Member speaking experimentally as an acknowledged expert with practical knowledge of anatomy, mental science, psychology, social conditions with everyday practical experience and long continued touch with the working class, and institutional inmates and with a trained medical mind on a most controversial subject. In the words of Danton:
De Vaudace, encore de Vaudace, et toujours de l'audace.
If ever there was a case of a man rising to this audacity, it is the case of a Labour Member rising from these benches to advocate anti-working class legislation. This problem is not new, but nature has its own way of dealing with mental defectives by limiting their progeny. It is an age-long, time immemorial problem, and it has always been a terror which has been held up like the sword of Damocles but has never fallen. Some when inebriated see beetles; the eugenist, intoxicated, sees defectives. The first question is: Are the number of mental defectives increasing? I say it is not a real, but only an apparent and fictitious increase owing to better diagnosis, a finer combing of the population, a higher standard of mental
fitness, better methods of ascertainment and better grading. Society is not apical with the Eugenist at the top and the hoi-polloi in the valley. If it be true that mental deficiency is increasing what becomes of the great scientific theory of "the survival of the Fittest"?
What is mental deficiency? There are many and varying standards, and the cause is doubtful. Heredity, still an unknown and exaggerated bogy of humanity, especially in eugenic nightmares, has been foisted upon the world as the main cause of mental deficiency. It all depends on the standard. For instance, in the United States of America the records for the United States Army during the War show that 47 per cent. were said to have the mentality of 13 years of age. So that it depends on your idea of mental fitness. Social adaptability is the quality which is usually urged as the best test, and Members of this House know how difficult it is to adapt oneself to this House and how long it sometimes takes.
What is the main source of mental defectives? There are two sources. Those high up and those low down—Mayfair and Mile End, Belgravia and Bow. The main source of mental defectives is not the certified defectives themselves. It is well known medically that the low grade defective has not a high percentage of fertility. It is the high grade defective. And what is the main source of the high grade defective? It is the subnormal population, the lower submerged 10 per cent. living on the knife-edge of poverty who are alleged to be carriers of a defective germ plasm—and there is said to be a defective germ plasm in every family. The product of these germ cells of the submerged is affected by economic stress, by ill-nutrition, by under-nourishment, by possible injury to the mother, by chronic ante-natal infection, by acute microbic disease, by bad midwifery, by glandular deficiency, and a host of other causes. There is nothing wrong with the germ plasm itself. At the bottom, mental deficiency is an economic problem. The germ plasm of every man represents not a union of two but of hundreds of previous germ cells. It is said scientifically that we have 300 billion paternal germ cells, and 700 billion maternal germ cells in the making of one human. The process of germ division is not a simple but
complicated process—a unicellular division and casting off which is one of the great mysteries of Eternal life. The chances of any particular division of cells and qualities are remote, and the odds of any particular union are one in five millions of billions. If every one of these germ cells has a chance of a defective offspring, the chances are a real gamble at the best against the production of a mental defective. If once the principle of maiming or mutilation is admitted, not for the benefit or health of the individual but for the good of others or the State acting for others, there is no brake to sliding down the slippery slope leading to the swamp of State penalisation, where we may get rid of all those obnoxious to the State. Those preaching subversive doctrines may have their tongues cut out. Those writing subversive doctrines may have their hands cut off. The State (those temporarily in power) are the dictators of limb and life. The eugenist upon a pinnacle of intellectual snobbery, looking down upon the less fortunate mental defective, may gradually raise the standard of mental deficiency and push more and more citizens into the maelstrom of the mentally-maimed.
Will sterilisation help? Some will still need institutional treatment. Others will still need communal care and supervision. You are not stopping the source of the supply but you are giving a greater freedom to sterilised defectives to wander as shunned Ishmaels in society, with infantile and puerile minds, with perversions, with anti-social tendencies, being unappreciative of results, willing tools of scoundrels and sharpers, exploited in every way, living degraded lives, spreading disease, mainly venereal, still impulsive sexually and a dangerous menace to innocent women and children, spreading bad habits of hygiene and citizenship, drifting to the lowest and possibly criminal haunts of society like the damned in Dante's "Inferno." Sterilisation is thus not a help but a hindrance. The request for sterilisation is said to be voluntary. Can anyone ask a child of 10 years to submit to he sterilised for the rest of its life? The request is valueless, and the consent unreliable. If consent is by a relative or guardian it raises the great ethical question whether anyone
has the right to maim any individual, especially an individual who is alleged not to have sufficient reason to give any consent. Then which sex is to undergo the simple operation? In males, the operation is simple. In females it involves a serious operation, an opening of the abdominal cavity, with a risk of death from anaesthesia or shock or infection, or surgical accidents, or risk of invalidity from a gross disturbance of the interchange, and interplay between important glands. In America they have actually proposed to introduce an electric cautery a foot and a half into a person's abdomen, and then cauterise inside. They have done this operation, and then they tell the public it does not cause any pain.
I submit that this is class legislation. In Europe there are Monarchies and dynasties riddled with haemophilia, a disease transmitted by the females but affecting the males. It causes bleeding

on the slightest provocation or injury. I have never yet heard one expert speak of the advantage of sterilisation in the case of these royalties, and I submit that for these poor, helpless, mentally-maimed people the ordinary average mental defective person, we should adopt the other methods of segregation and socialisation. If we take the long view and not the short view, ultimately mental deficiency, instead of being a terror and a menace, may yield good results to proper methods. I ask this House to refuse to give leave to introduce this pagan, anti-democratic, anti-Christian, unethical Bill.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable mental defectives to undergo sterilizing operations or sterilizing treatment upon their own application, or that of their spouses or parents or guardians; and for purposes connected therewith.

The House divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 167.

Division No. 443.]
AYES.
[4.10 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Arnott, John
Hopkin, Daniel
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Atholl, Duchess of
Horrabin, J. F.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Benson, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sandham, E.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Knight, Holford
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shillaker, J. F.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Buchan, John
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Butler, R. A.
Leach, W.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Campbell, E. T.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Daggar, George
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sorensen, R.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Day, Harry
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mathers, George
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Millar, J. D.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Dundale, Capt. T. L.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thurtle, Ernest


Eden, Captain Anthony
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


England, Colonel A.
Paling, Wilfrid
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Ferguson, Sir John
Palmer, E. T.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Warrender, Sir Victor


Glassey, A. E.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Price, M. P.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pybus, Percy John
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson



Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rathbone, Eleanor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Raynes, W. R.
Major Church and Sir Basil Peto.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brothers, M.
Charleton, H. C.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Alpass, J. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Ammon, Charles George
Buchanan, G.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Compton, Joseph


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Burgess, F. G.
Cowan, D. M.


Barr, James
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.


Batey, Joseph
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Bowen, J. W.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dukes, C.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.)
Duncan, Charles


Ede, James Chuter
Lang, Gordon
Scrymgeour, E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Scurr, John


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sexton, Sir James


Egan, W. H.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Sherwood, G. H.


Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shield, George William


Fermoy, Lord
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shinwell, E.


Foot, Isaac
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Simmons, C. J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Leonard, W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gibbins, Joseph
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H.B.(Keighley)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Longden, F.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gill, T. H.
Lunn, William
Smithers, Waldron


Gossling, A. G.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Stephen, Campbell


Gould, F.
McEntee, V. L.
Sullivan, J.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sutton, J. E.


Gray, Milner
McShane, John James
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Thompson, Luke


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Manning, E. L.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mansfield, W.
Tillett, Ben


Groves, Thomas E.
March, S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Grundy, Thomas W.
Marcus, M.
Toole, Joseph


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Marshall, Fred
Townend, A. E.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James
Vaughan, David


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Meller, R. J.
Viant, S. P.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Messer, Fred
Wallace, H. W.


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Middleton, G.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Mills, J. E.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Hayday, Arthur
Montague, Frederick
Watkins, F. C.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mort, D. L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Muff, G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Herriotts, J.
Murnin, Hugh
Westwood, Joseph


Hicks, Ernest George
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
White, H. G.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hoffman, P. C.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Isaacs, George
Perry, S. F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Remer, John R.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Richards, R.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kelly, W. T.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tess)
Womersley, W. J.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Ritson, J.



Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Romeril, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kinley, J.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Mr. Logan and Dr. Morgan.


Kirkwood, D.
Salmon, Major I.



Question put, and agreed to.

WAR PENSIONS (AMENDMENT).

Major COHEN: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal Section five of the War Pensions Act, 1921.
I would like, first of all, to read the Section which the Bill proposes to repeal:
The power of the Minister under any Warrant, Order in Council, or Order to grant a pension to any person in respect of disablement shall not be exercised unless the claim in respect of the disablement is made within seven years after the date on which the claimant was discharged, or the date fixed under the Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act, 1918, as the date of the termination of the present war, whichever date is the earlier.
The word to which one objects in that Section is the word "unless." At the present moment there are large numbers of ex-service men suffering from something which they genuinely believe to be due to War service, and owing to the fact that more than seven years have elapsed between their discharge from the
Army and the manifestation of the result of their wounds or disease, they are debarred under this Act from making claims, or, at any rate, having made claims, from having those claims brought to the appeals court. It may be said that the War has now been over for 13 years and that it is rather a long time afterwards to seek to alter an Act which has existed since 1921. But I think it is within the knowledge of the House that I, in my humble way, have lost no opportunity of bringing before the House the fact that this enactment should have been altered. I have tried to do so in every way I could. We have also the fact that ex-service men for the last two years have been rather in the position of Mr. Micawber and have been "waiting for something to turn up" because at the last election in "Labour's Appeal to the Nation" the Labour party definitely said:
The limit of seven years which has meant so much injustice to ex-service men will be removed so cases may still be considered.
The Government have made many concessions but they have removed nothing, I do not say that it was done intentionally, but unwittingly they have deceived the people into the belief that something has been done which has not been done. They have deceived even so learned a man as the Solicitor-General because in his election address in last January he said:
War pensions are now being administered on a most humane basis and the seven year limit has been abolished.
I think the Minister will agree that nothing has been abolished. What the Minister has done—and it is quite a lot though not nearly enough—is this. He has said that men may send in applications for consideration of their claims, and that no such claims should be debarred from a hearing merely through being outside the time limit. Since he said that in November, 1929, until February of this year, the latest figures which I have show that 22,800 cases have been submitted and of these 1,210 cases have been admitted to treatment or pension. Roughly, one in 19 who have made claims have been granted something. As I say that is something which we might not have achieved earlier but what the Ministry have not done, and what this Bill would do, is to give all these claimants who have been turned down the right of appeal to the appeals tribunal, just the same as if the claim had been made within the seven years. The Minister now reserves to himself the sole right of adjudication and the claimant is entirely in his hands and those of his officials.
The present concession was made by the Minister by a stroke of the pen, and it could, equally well, be unmade by this or another Minister, by a similar stroke of the pen. The ex-service man wants the right by statute to put forward his claim, and if it is not admitted, the right to go to an independent tribunal where the dice are not loaded against him, and where a friend can help him to put forward his case and where he is assured of a fair and impartial hearing. Widows are also affected in this matter. In a case where a widow gets a pension by special sanction and not by warrant she has no right of appeal. There is only a right of appeal in a case where the woman's husband had been awarded a
pension by the War Office. Since pensions started, 225,220 or nearly a quarter of a million cases, have been heard by the appeals court and out of these 55,600 have been allowed, or one in four. That proves as far as anything can be proved that one in every four of the cases submitted by potential pensioners has been right. We have thus a proportion of one in four of the eases submitted to the independent tribunal allowed, but only one in 19 of the cases submitted to the Ministry.
The proposal of the Bill is no new thing. At the last Election the British Legion did not wish to bring pressure by a questionnaire while the Election was in progress. One knows how much candidates are swayed by questionnaires, but after the Election—about 18 months ago—the local branches of the Legion approached local Members of Parliament and 77 Members definitely pledged themselves to support the abolition of Section 5 of the Act of 1921—which is quite a large proportion. In conclusion I would quote from a speech made by the Minister of Pensions on 8th May, 1929, on the Ministry of Pensions Vote. He was not then Minister of Pensions, and this is what he said:
Whatever may be our views in regard to other organisations which hare expressed views in regard to what is wanted in the interests of ex-service men I think it can he properly claimed that the British Legion is entitled to speak for the many thousands of members who come within its scope. The Legion say:
'We are of the opinion that whilst the onus of proof is on the claimant disabled officers and men should hare the right to submit claims to pension irresspective of any time limit and if rejected by the Ministry the right to place their claims before an independent tribunal.'
That seems to me justly to meet the claim that can properly be made in regard to the time limit and I leave the matter with the support which I have quoted from the British Legion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1929, cols. 2242 and 2243; Vol. 227].
If the Minister held those views as a private Member, then it would say very little for public life if the fact of his going into office three weeks later altered them. I do not believe that the Minister has altered his views. He has always been a friend of the ex-service man and one for whom the ex-service man has always had the highest regard. I cannot help feeling that he is just waiting for something like this Bill in order that the
House itself by a definite expression of opinion, may give him that impetus to say to his advisers "The ex-service men of the country want Section 5 abolished; the House of Commons has given its consent and I also am in favour of it. Let us get down to it."

Bill ordered to be brought in by Major Cohen, Lieut.-General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Mr. Everard, Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan, Mr. Simmons, and Viscount Elmley.

WAR PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL,

"to repeal section five of the War Pensions Act, 1921," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 216.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill,

Surrey County Council Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Ashton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge, and Dukinfield (District) Waterworks Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the London Electric Railway Company to construct new railways and a subway and works and to raise additional moneys; to empower the Metropolitan District Railway Company to acquire lands; to empower the Central London Rail way Company to construct subways and works and to confer further powers on the said companies and on the City and South London Railway Company; and for other purposes." [London Electric, Metropolitan District, and Central London Railway Companies (Works) Bill [Lords.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 215.]

LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, AND CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES (WORKS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Cecil Wilson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Local Government (Clerks) Bill [Lords].

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Local Government (Clerks) Bill [Lords]: Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Colonel Ashley, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Blinded, Mr. Greenwood, Miss Lawrence, Sir Douglas Newton, Mr. Short, Mr. Watkins, and Miss Wilkinson.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 3) BILL.

As amended, considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: I gave a Ruling the other day on an Instruction of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise). I then said that no Amendments or new Clauses would be in order unless their object was to affect persons who are now entitled to benefit. I have some doubt in regard to the first of the new Clauses on the Order Paper to-day—[Conditions of benefit of workers held to be not unemployed on days for which they have received wages]. I understand that that Clause refers to persons who might be entitled to benefit at the present time under the Act of Parliament, but who, in the opinion of the umpire and according to awards which have been made, are not entitled to benefit. In the circumstances, I propose to call the Clause.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Conditions of benefit of workers held to be not unemployed on days for which they have received no wages.)

It shall be the duty of the Minister to make, as soon as possible after the passing of this Act, regulations which shall make such modifications in the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts relating to the determination of claims for benefit as may appear to be necessary, so that persons who satisfy the first statutory condition for the receipt of benefit but who are held to be not unemployed on any day although they received no wages in respect of that day shall be entitled to benefit.—[Mr. Maxton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In drafting the new Clause we carefully included the phrase:
so that persons who satisfy the first statutory condition for the receipt of benefit but who are held to be not unemployed on any day although they received no wages in respect of that day shall be entitled to benefit,
in order to bring it well within the Ruling that you gave on the previous occasion. The fact that we mention the first statutory condition will make it
obligatory that anyone who wants benefit as the result of the inclusion of this proposed Clause, must have the 30-stamps qualification within the limit of two years, and will bar out those who at that particular moment, had a less qualification such as is allowed to those on transitional benefit. Our purpose in moving this new Clause is to take advantage of the offer which, I think, was made in reply to a line of criticism that we directed against the Bill, that it was one-sided in its operation, that it operated only to deprive people of benefit who are presently getting it, or who are entitled to it under the present legislation, but that it did not bring in any one person out of the hundreds of thousands who, though barred by the strict terms of the Statute, have what everyone recognises is a sound and just claim to unemployment benefit as genuinely unemployed persons and who are satisfying all the general conditions attached to the insured person.
I mentioned hundreds of thousands, but there are probably many more. The Ruling of Mr. Speaker, however, makes it impossible to bring in large numbers whom we would have preferred to see included, but there is a sufficient number presently suffering injustice to justify the House in including the proposed Clause and removing some portion of the anomalies that are operating against a large section of unemployed persons.
The position we desire to meet by this new Clause is more particularly that of the miner, who frequently, having presented himself for work and gone down the pit, and proceeded to the place where he is to be employed, finds on arrival after a considerable journey that, through some unforeseen circumstances, he is unable to engage in any wage-earning work that day and has to return home, probably after the expiry of a considerable period of time. He is a piece worker and he is deprived of wage earning for that day, but, as unemployment insurance law stands at the moment, he is not an unemployed person. He has paid insurance contributions, he is ready to work, he is normally engaged in insurable employment, he is available for insurable employment, but he is denied any benefit, although he is unable to work and earn wages on that particular day.
If the Minister includes this new Clause, she will remedy a grievance which has been very widely felt, and which has been frequently voiced to Members of Parliament in correspondence from their constituencies, particularly from those constituencies where there are a large number of miners. I mention specifically the case of the miner, because it was in the case of a miner that the leading decision by the umpire was given, but other workers are not exempt from the same grievance in their particular industries. There is the case of workers in a textile factory who present themselves for work, and ten minutes after the normal start a breakdown occurs in the machinery. A day's work and a days earnings are lost, but, according to the decision, that day is not one on which persons, although deprived of their wages, are entitled to unemployment benefit.
There are other cases, such as one which I received from my constituency recently, which seem to come within the scope of this proposed Clause. Such are those persons who, being unemployed and seeing no immediate prospect of employment, consider whether they can equip thmselves for employment in some new direction. I have in mind the case of a young lad in my division who became unemployed in the particular work in which he was engaged, and, coming to the conclusion that the future prospects of his industry were not very good, proceeds at considerable expense to his parents to train to get new qualifications, new knowledge, and new skill that may equip him for employment in an industry that offers better opportunities than the one in which he had been engaged. That is just exactly the type of man who should be encouraged by this House with all its talk about demoralisation, its dislike of encouraging the man who does not want to work and never did want to work, and with its fear that Unemployment Insurance is developing the shirker type. Surely such an individual, who is prepared at a fairly advanced age to take up a new walk of life, is prepared to submit himself to the discipline of a new training, is prepared to incur the expenditure involved in this new training in order that he may become a socially useful unit in an industry that may be able to employ him, is entitled to every
encouragement that the House of Commons and the Government can give him.
Under this new Clause it will become possible for the Minister to recognise that such a man is an insured person satisfying the first statutory condition, who, although engaged from day to day, is not receiving wages and is entitled to unemployment benefit. I hope that the Minister, having vindicated her authority by refusing to submit to Measures for 19 hours on the Committee stage, and having shown that she is a strong Minister and that she genuinely intends to carry out the undertaking which she mentioned on Committee stage—I am not quite sure to which of the undertakings she was referring, whether they were public undertakings or private undertakings—and having carried out her undertaking to introduce the Bill and carry it through the Committee stage, will consider whether now on the Report stage she cannot include this new Clause, and so relieve the Bill of the charge that has been made, and will be made, that the anomalies to be dealt with will operate against the working classes. I hope that she will see that this new Clause will bring into benefit large numbers of insured persons who to-day are refused benefit, and that that refusal constitutes in very truth a real abuse and a real anomaly.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to second the Motion.
I hope that the Minister will accede to our request, for it will give her the opportunity which I am sure she has been seeking. When we put before the Ministry cases of hardships where the Umpire's decision has gone against the worker, invariably the Minister has said, "If I could, I would meet you, but the finding of the Umpire is final, and we cannot interfere." In my sojourning in mining villages, I have had several cases drawn to my attention of miners finding no work after going to the pits. The miner gets himself ready for the pit, and if the average Member had to perform that operation, he would think that that in itself was a good day's work. He has put on his clothes and has walked miles through the open countryside, with no shelter, with the rain and the wind beating on him, and when he gets to the colliery—perhaps, as in one case I know of, after walking for one and three-
quarter hours, and soaked to the skin—he is informed that there is no work for him. In the case I refer to the man did not have to go down the pit. His application for benefit was turned down because on that day, so far as the Employment Exchange was concerned, he was not available for insurable employment. It was the Umpire's decision.
It is to put power into the hands of the Ministry, so that no Umpire will be able to give such a decision as that, that I am seconding this Clause. Take the building industry, in which the men are subjected to terrible hardships under this legislation on account of our climatic conditions—particularly bricklayers and the labourers for bricklayers. Carrying the hod is about the last job on God's earth! These men turn out in all kinds of weather, only to discover when they get to the scene of operations that the foreman has decided that this is not a day on which it is going to pay him to keep the men working. He decides that he cannot get a day's work out of them because of either frost or rain. I know of men who go out of the city of Glasgow seeking work—because my own brother-in-law is a builder. They go out miles. I wish some of the boys who are smiling now had a job of that kind to do. They would not find it a smiling matter. Those men walk out of the city of Glasgow to the suburbs or, it may be, away out into the country, again in our inclement weather; men who are underfed, under-clothed, without any overcoats, many of them with no underclothes, because they cannot afford underclothes. They go out to their job, only to be told that there will be no work that day. Because of having gone out they are told, when they get to the Employment Exchange, that they have not been available for insurable employment on that day.
Take the case of my own industry, shipbuilding and engineering. Shipbuilding is largely an outside job, the men are not working under cover, and time and again in the depth of winter, after they have risen out of their beds in the morning and gone out into the wild weather, anxious to get work, anxious to earn an honest penny, hanging about the gates waiting on it, suffering all the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, they find there is no work that day. Yet
because those men were not signing on at the Employment Exchange they are regarded as not having been available for insurable employment. This is not an odd case that I am citing. I have submitted innumerable cases to the Ministry. All the workers in the factories, all the mill workers, textile and woollen, come under the ban. This Clause would relieve them. If, when they go out to their work in the morning, they find that the power has gone off, and a thousand or two of them are involved, every consideration is shown to them; but when it is simply a ease of a loom or two breaking down, or a section that is stopped, then no consideration is given to them, they are a few, and they get neither pay from the employer nor anything from the Employment Exchange.
I am anxious that the Members of the House shall understand what it is we are trying to get at. The position is that because those individuals go to their work, are willing to work but are unable to work through no fault of their own, and through going to their work are unable to be at the Employment Exchange, that they are cut off benefit under the umpire's decision. We do not want to stretch out the Debate, but we are anxious to get some concession. "Hope springs eternal in the human breast," and it is a good thing it does. Finally, I say this, that if any saving is effected by this Bill it should be used to give justice to those who are unemployed.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): The history of this matter is so very complicated that it is due to the House, and due to the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, who have put their case in a very temperate way, that I should explain why it is not possible for me to accept the new Clause. As the Mover has said, it is the mining industry that is primarily concerned. There is a certain fringe of cases that may occur in other industries, but the difficulty is felt most acutely in connection with mines. This is the progress which has been made in connection with this definition of when a man begins work in a mine. First of all, the umpire's decision was that it was when he was at the pit top. Then it went a stage further.
After representations by and the skilful arguments of the trade union representatives before the umpire the point was moved to the pit bottom. Then, very largely due to the successful case conducted by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), it was moved to the lamp station, and that is where it is at present. The lamp station is the point determining when a miner is beginning his day's work.
I am not at all surprised that the name of no miners' Member is attached to this new Clause, because the miners' Members are well aware of the complications of the situation. The situation is complicated by the fact that the starting point for the day's work suits the compensation cases, suits the minimum wage question and presses with only little hardship upon a small proportion of people in conection with unemployment claims. However, this point of when the day's work begins is one of the points—there is a whole collection of umpire's decisions in relation to this matter—which quite obviously cannot be settled by an Act of Parliament. Owing to the infinite variations in connection with the day's work, it must be a question of the interpretation of the statutory condition by the statutory authorities. We have asked the Unemployment Insurance Commission to review this aspect of the matter to see whether any improvement can be effected in connection with the results of this series of umpire's decisions.
Reference was made to the building trades, but I certainly think this Clause would not be acceptable to the workers there. Their policy is to try to secure payment for wet time, and to make special arrangements which will meet the peculiar circumstances of their industry. The Clause also raises the very, very difficult question, a question absolutely woven into the very fabric of the insurance system, of availability for work. I am sure I have said enough to show that the issues raised by this Amendment are so great and so complicated that they would be entirely outside the purpose of the Bill, and for these reasons, not because there is no criticism of the complaint referred to, but because it is not possible to deal with it in this way, I cannot accept the new Clause.

Mr. MAXTON: I was not clear about one point. The right hon. Lady said that in remedying this admitted abuse one could not proceed by legislation but would need to proceed by regulation, and—

Miss BONDFIELD: I think the hon. Member misunderstood me. What I said was that the point at which employment begins is so infinitely varied in the different trades that it could not possibly be dealt with by a Clause in an Act of Parliament.

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask a further question, because I am not yet quite clear about this? Do I understand the right hon. Lady to say that if she can get over the detailed point of when the employment starts she has now, under existing legislation, the power to grant benefit by regulation?

Miss BONDFIELD: The point is that, if a man is judged by the umpire to be unemployed, he is entitled to benefit, but, if he is judged by the umpire to be employed, he is not entitled to benefit.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. POTTS: I want to make it clear at once that I have no intention of opposing the Government, but I wish to draw attention to a matter which I hope will have some consideration. I refer to the case which occurred in the Yorkshire coalfields and which is well known. It was determined by the umpire, and I happened to be in charge of it, along with the miners' general secretary and members of the Yorkshire Miners' Association. I want the Minister to understand how this thing has been determined, and how people are regarded as being in employment and out of employment in these cases, so that the whole matter may be reviewed. We took the case as a test that if a man walked from his home to the pit on the surface and walked a mile and a-half underground, as in this case, he was entitled to be regarded as having been working. The umpire decided otherwise. That decision was given, and it applies now to the whole country. I put the point to the umpire, Suppose that workmen or workpeople have learned on the surface that they could work, would then they be entitled to unemployment benefit? He answered "Yes." But if he got down
below and went to the coal face he was not entitled to payment of benefit. That, to my mind, is a wrong thing under the existing law. I only wish to impress upon the Minister that she will take a close interest in this matter and endeavour to put it right.

Mr. KINLEY: I want to ask the Minister whether she cannot give some further consideration to this matter before a final decision is reached. May I give her some illustration as to the hardship and injustice that now operates under the existing law and which the proposed new Clause would obviate? I will give her the cases of two young men, each of whom had a good insurance record. In the first case, the man had an unbroken insurance record of over seven years. During the whole of that time he had had his card stamped with the utmost regularity every week. He had been in a good steady job, and he was a good steady workmen. The firm who engaged him kept him till the last moment and parted with him with regret when they could no longer retain his services. He went to the Employment Exchange, thinking himself fairly safe for a period during which he could look round to find other work. He hunted over the whole of this area trying to find work in his own trade, and discovered, after exhaustive search, that the reason which had compelled his own employers to discharge him had had the same effect upon other employers in the trade.
As it was of little use to seek further employment in his own trade, he decided to make a change to find some other way of earning a living. He went to the Ribble Omnibus Company, who told him that they had no vacancies and that they could not offer him employment, but that they were prepared to give him a ticket that would entitle him at any period of the day to ride upon the company's omnibuses and to observe the work of the conductor and that at some subsequent period, if they were short of conductors, they might send for him. He did not, therefore, become an employé. But in his anxiety to show the Employment Exchange officials that he was not a slacker he went to the exchange and reported what had happened and immediately found that his unemploy-
ment benefit was taken from him. I do not believe it was ever intended that in these circumstances a man should be deprived of benefit. When the incident was brought to the notice of the Minister, she at once sympathised but declared that unfortunately she was helpless. The machine operated in such a way as to inflict injustice on this man, and it had to go on inflicting injustice on him and on others who might be in the same circumstances.
The sympathy which the Minister extended on that occasion can be implemented now. The acceptance of this new Clause would prevent recurrence of a similar admitted injustice in the future. I appeal to the Minister that, if the law is operating in such a way and she has no power, as Minister, to prevent such injustice recurring, she should have notices exhibited in the Employment Exchanges warning those men who want to find work of the risk they are running of forfeiting their unemployment benefit.
The other case which I want to mention, curiously enough, belongs to the same company, the Ribble Omnibus Company. An engineer who became unemployed thought that this transport industry, which is growing very rapidly in Merseyside, as elsewhere, might find him employment. He reported to the offices of the company and was informed that it was necessary for him to undergo a test to discover whether he was suited for the work and had the necessary degree of efficiency. The test he had to undergo was that he had to work two successive night shifts. This he accepted and reported on the first night. He was told by the foreman in charge of the night shift what was the work required of him and by what he would be judged in the morning. He worked his night shift through and was told that his work had been satisfactory and that he was to report again the same night for another night shift. He went on the second occasion, put in his second night shift, and, after calling at the offices of the company, he expected, having satisfied all those who were in charge of the mechanical side, that he would be given a job. But when he arrived at the office he discovered to his disappointment that all the information waiting for him vas that it had been decided he was not up to the company's standard.
The ordinary individual, knowing these facts, would say that the man had been deceived, that he had been exploited, that two nights' work had been got out of him by the company for which they had paid him nothing, and that the man had been persuaded under false pretences to give up two nights' rest. It might be said, from another angle, that he had been guilty of preventing another man being employed for two nights. He went to the Employment Exchange to claim unemployment benefit. The Employment Exchange decided that under the existing law he was not entitled to benefit, and that he was, as a matter of fact, not unemployed. He got no farther. The court of referees naturally interpreted the existing Act just as the Employment Exchange officials had done, and did not give the man leave to appeal. All he could do was to come to me, and I told him that I would bring the case to the notice of the Minister. One always finds, when cases of injustice and hardship that have crept in are brought to the notice of the Minister, that she sympathises honestly and automatically. Her sympathy is with these people all the time, but she has been compelled hitherto, on every occasion, to point out with regret that the existing Acts do not allow her any alternative. She has no power under the Acts as they now stand, and she has so far been quite unable to give any assistance.
The time has arrived when the opportunity is given to see that in future such hardships and injustices shall not be inflicted. Let it be borne in mind that what I have said about cases from my own constituency, with respect to an industry that is developing tremendously there and in other parts of the country, may be paralleled in all industrial areas where skilled men are being displaced. They are being thrown upon the unemployment market in such numbers and in such conditions that they realise that there is little hope of returning to employment in their own occupation. Being accustomed to think for themselves more than others may do, they are tempted to turn to the developing industries in their area, and they present themselves in the hope of securing new employment. Every one of those men, genuinely seeking work, is tempted to accept the conditions imposed by the company I have mentioned and by other companies, and their accept-
ance, arising from the eagerness of their desire for further employment, is the reason, under the existing Act, that they are deprived of their unemployment benefit, however long their insurance record may be.
In the second of the cases that I have described, I appealed to the Minister for further assistance. Again, while she was unable to see that this man got his unemployment benefit, she did at least agree with me that the decision that the man was not unemployed carried with it another implication, so far as the firm was concerned. The man may have been an employed person. I called upon her, in view of the decision that had been officially come to that the man was not unemployed, to get into touch with the colliery company and to insist upon the firm stamping the man's card. I am glad to be able to say that she proposed to take that course. Obviously, no pressure, either by the Minister or by the House, could be put on a firm to insist that the man who had given two nights' work should receive two nights' wages for it. That is an injustice of the kind that is bound to occur, and now there is an opportunity for putting the matter right I ask the Minister whether she will not consider, with all the sympathy she has given us in the past, taking action to see that these injustices are put an end to, once and for all.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In order that some of my colleagues in the House, and many other people not within these four walls, might not misinterpret the silence of the miner Members of Parliament on this occasion, I should like to state why we do not intend to oppose the Government when voting upon this proposed new Clause. All the statements made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and others, with regard to the miners, are perfectly correct. When this matter first arose, the miners' trade unions were obliged to deal with what they then regarded as an anomaly. Prior to that time, miners who proceeded to the pit top and found no work available, were denied the right to receive benefit. When a case was submitted to the umpire, we not only had to controvert the philosophy of the courts of referees and the local insurance officials, but we had to argue before the umpire that the fact that the person had de-
clared himself for work, had proceeded to the colliery, and then had had to return, having earned nothing, at least justified him in submitting a claim for unemployment benefit. The umpire was able to argue that, for the purpose of the minimum wage law, once a person arrived at the colliery for the purposes of the firm, our claim was sustained, that the man was actually at work, although he never descended the mine and consequently did not earn any of the money. For the purposes of minimum wage law, that was regarded as a working day.
With regard to compensation law, it has been established for very many years that, if the man arrives at the colliery and is on the premises, should he be crippled in the colliery or at the colliery surface, he would be entitled to receive compensation. While in logic it might be that we could not argue that a man was at work for the purpose of compensation but was not at work for the purpose of unemployment insurance, we thought that we had a high moral case in claiming that if the man presented himself in the pit bottom, and then had to ascend the mine, having earned nothing at all, clearly he was available for work. No work was there for him and he had earned nothing, so consequently he should have payment for that day. We proceeded to the umpire on one occasion, and we satisfied the umpire about a man who went down the mine, walked one mile and had to return because no work was available, owing to a breakage, or a fall of roof, or any one of the numerous things that can happen in a mine. The umpire recognised that this was a distinct hardship and anomaly, as far as the man's work was concerned, and he extended his previous decision to include a man who had descended a mine so far as the point where the men's lamps are handed out, and who then discovered that there was a fall of roof and had to return. It is an anomaly that such a man should be regarded as unemployed for that day.
There is still the point beyond the lamp station and the actual working face. We recognise the difficulty of the man who proceeds to the point and has to return, having earned nothing at all, because of our general knowledge of this problem, which is highly technical, in
view of compensation law and minimum wage law. We insist that this and similar anomalies, or whatever you may care to call them, should be submitted to the Royal Commission for their consideration, and for report when their final report is forthcoming. That is the point of view of the miners' Members sitting on these benches, and that is their justification for not opposing the Government. Once the final report of the Royal Commission is forthcoming, steps can perhaps be taken. At the moment we have no desire to endanger our minimum wage regulations, made between trade unions and employers, or to incur the possibility of losing compensation for workpeople injured at the pit top or at the pit bottom. We think that hon. Members below the Gangway will understand the point of view of the miners' representatives in supporting the Government.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: The hon. Lady, in making her reply, stated that the matter had been under review, and was placed for further consideration in the hands of the Royal Commission; but I was surprised when she stopped there. In view of the proposed new Clause which the House is discussing, I wish she had been able to state that, on the result of the deliberations of the Royal Commission, the whole question of employment would be reconsidered. That might have met the case. It would only be a question of waiting until a full investigation had been made into all the criticisms. In regard to what I would call the time-and-station points, in settling whether a man is at work, speaking as an ex-miner, I know from practical experience it is quite possible to do a major portion of the day's work in walking to work. There is no need to go into such details now. If this question is still being considered, and if the Ministry has not made up its mind because a considered judgment on the matter has not been reported to it, cannot the Minister now state, on the responsibility of the Government, that, when these considerations are completed and submitted, she will again bring the matter before the House, in order to get the changes necessary to establish a complete state of justice, so far as that part of the Act is concerned.

Mr. WISE: No one on these benches regards this proposed Clause as in anyway complicating the problems of the miners, in their dealing with the very difficult and intricate questions of workmen's compensation. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), but there is nothing in the proposed new Clause, in the way I interpret it, that has the effect which he suggests. We do not prejudge the decision of the Advisory Committee when they have considered all the complicated points as to where employment starts and where it ends. We simply base our case on this perfectly simple proposition: the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act is to provide benefit to persons not receiving wages because they are in fact unemployed. That is precisely the position of the persons whose cases we have considered. The essential point is that they are receiving no wages for that day, whereas they have to pay their rent, and feed themselves and their families during that day. The purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act is to provide benefit in respect of that day. "Well," says the hon. Member, "this is complicated by questions of what, and when, and where the man becomes employed, for the purpose of workmen's compensation." I do not think it is complicated at all. If the man goes down the mine, he goes on to the premises of the company. I think in some cases even if he is on his way to the premises of the company, and he has the misfortune to suffer an accident, under workmen's compensation law he gets compensation. That is an entirely different problem. He is about his employer's business, and the employer is bound to pay compensation. The problem here is not to secure him some compensation but arises from the fact that, because of the no doubt perfectly right but narrow reading of the law, he is deprived of wages.
Nothing in this proposed new Clause at all prejudges what arrangements may be made, or what decisions may be reached, in the variety of trades. I would remind my hon. Friends that the miners' case is only one of a great number. There are lace makers, workers at rolling mills, carters, textile workers, and others, all of whom are the subject of leading cases in this matter. Heaven
knows how many cases have been actually decided by courts of referees on the basis of the decision of the umpire. In this case there is no divergence of view among those who have taken part in this discussion. Everyone who has spoken agrees that these are anomalies and ought to be corrected, and that they press unfairly on the insured persons who are thus deprived of benefit. We say, Members on the Benches behind the Government say, the Minister says, and, when cases have come before the Umpire, the Umpire has in effect said, that such is the case. In the case of the trainee, the person receiving training but not receiving wages, the umpire said—and he has said the same in a number of other cases:
There is a natural desire to assist claimants in such circumstances, but the statutory authorities are bound by the statutory provisions, and cannot, in order to satisfy that natural desire, ignore the directions laid down for their observance by the legislature.
Everybody desires it to be done, but the Minister, in reply, says, "Wait till we have the full report of the Commission; wait till they have examined this matter in detail; wait till we have their recommendation." Why should we wait? We are not waiting for the full report of the Commission in the case of the anomalies that this Bill is designed to relieve. Why should we wait in this case, where the purpose is approved by everyone, to put right injustices which are suffered by insured persons?
If there is a series of cases in which the regulations method proposed by the Government in this Bill is appropriate, it is exactly this class of case, because you have to make your regulations to satisfy the varying circumstances of a variety of trades. Regulations which may be appropriate to the mining industry, having regard to the question where work begins and where it ends in that industry, would probably be quite inappropriate in the building industry or some other industry. What we want to do is to give power to the Advisory Committee set up under this Bill to consider the circumstances of each of these industries, in close consultation with the trade unions and others concerned, with a view to producing regulations which will remedy these admitted injustices. One does not
suppose that they will do that in the next two or three weeks, or probably in the next month or two, and in the meantime, no doubt, they will have the further reports of the Unemployment Insurance Commission covering the broad general principles on which these anomalies may conceivably be removed. What we are doing here is not to ante-date or ante-judge those principles; we are just giving power to the Minister to deal with these matters when she gets the reports and when the Advisory Committee has examined the cases. I see no opposition on the opposite benches and there is certainly no opposition on these benches, to dealing with anomalies that affect adversely the people whom we all on these benches primarily represent. I cannot see any conceivable advantage in waiting for several months during which the other type of anomalies will receive first attention, and I very much hope that the Minister will be prepared to meet us in what I think is a very reasonable proposal.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I want to appeal to the House at least to come to a decision on this point. In the very protracted all-night Sitting, certain definite promises were made on points which, if I may respectfully say so, were of even greater importance than this, and it would be a profound mistake if those who raised very clear and specific grievances should not have an opportunity of putting them forward. My hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) will not, I am sure, think I am taking advantage when I put it to him that it must be obvious that, when there are in this House, sitting on these benches, a large number of representative trade unionists from all the industries that he mentioned—miners' representatives, engineers—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Robert Young): The right hon. Gentleman should address me.

Mr. THOMAS: I admit that I ought to have looked the other way when I was dealing with the engineering industry. It must occur to my hon. Friend that there is some justification for those who at least know the cases, who, unlike the hon. Member have conducted those cases—[Interruption]—with the greatest respect,
there are others who have dealt with thousands; let us admit that. What is the real point? Take the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Potts). He knows perfectly well that, had he been arguing that same case, for the same miner, for the same Federation, on the basis of workmen's compensation, he would have had to reverse the arguments that he used—[Interruption]. Everyone who is a trade unionist and has to deal with the practical side of these matters knows it. Here is a technical point on which not only hundreds, but hundreds of thousands of miners, railwaymen, cotton operatives, and people in all industries are affected by the compensation side of the case. That is the difficulty. It all turns—[Interruption]—I am stating the experience of a trade union leader and one who has negotiated and knows these difficulties. It all turns on the phrase "availability of work." Everyone knows the difficulties and technicalities, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour put it quite fairly, saying that the whole thing is under consideration and she would give consideration to it. That is as far as you are entitled to expect—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Supposing that the report was the other way—supposing that it was absolutely contrary to what my right hon. Friend desired, and she committed herself in advance to accept it. At all events I hope, now that the matter has had a fair discussion and the points are quite clear to the House we may at least, without moving the Closure, have an opportunity of dividing.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Rowson.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: On a point of Order. May I inquire on what basis speakers are selected in the Debate?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The selection of speakers rests with me.

Mr. BROWN: I know. What I am questioning is the justice of the selection.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: rose—

Mr. BROWN: May I submit a point of Order?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There can be no point of Order in regard to the selection of speakers. No point of Order arises.

Mr. BROWN: With great respect, I desire to submit a point of Order to you. Am I entitled to do that?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: In connection with the selection of speakers, no.

Mr. BROWN: Am I entitled to put this point to you, that from the beginning of this discussion, every time a speaker has sat down, I have risen and you have called upon all kinds of people?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must exercise patience.

Mr. BROWN: I am afraid that so long as you are in the Chair, Sir—[Interruption].

Mr. ROWSON: I do not rise to say anything regarding the miners' case, because, as was said by the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), that can be safely left with the Miners' Federation to deal with, and they understand the details of the case from top to bottom. I want, however, to back up the plea put forward by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) regarding those who are trying to get into new industries. There is a great deal of substance in the point that he made, and I can cite cases from the district in which I live which are very hard cases. For instance, in that area 14 pits have been closed down, and there are many opportunities for young fellows both to get into the service of the Ribble Omnibus Company and into the service of the Lancashire United Tramways. A man can volunteer to go as a learner on either the trams or the omnibuses. Because there is no work to be had in the mining industry, he goes into another industry to try and qualify in order that he may ask for a job when he has passed out, and when he goes there in the position of a learner he is told by the Employment Exchange authorities that he is no longer employed, and he is receiving no wages at all for the work that he is doing. I have had a case before the umpire in which the umpire said that the man could have his unemployment benefit for every day on which he was not on the omnibuses, but on the days when he was on the omnibuses as a kind of learner, earning nothing at all, but qualifying himself for employment if a vacancy occurred, he was not regarded as unemployed. I submit that the plea
which has been put forward is sound, and that in cases like this men ought to be allowed to go as learners and make themselves proficient in the job, and get their unemployment pay during the period that they are going through tuition.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: I rise to express the hope that the Debate upon this proposed new Clause will not end without a further statement on behalf of the Ministry of Labour, for I regard the position in which the matter is now left as exceedingly unsatisfactory. The Secretary of State for the Dominions has echoed the plea made by an earlier speaker behind him, that this matter should be left without further action on the part of the House of Commons until such time as the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance has reported to us, and he says it is understood that this matter will be dealt with in a later report. I say with great respect that the right hon. Gentleman should be the last person to submit that plea to us, for he occupies a very prominent position in the trade union movement in this country. He sat for many years on the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, and still occupies a very prominent place in the deliberations of the annual gathering of the Trades Union Congress, and he must be aware, or, if he is not, he has entirely forgotten his previous affiliations, that the Trades Union Congress itself has condemned the work of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance so far, and has issued a special pamphlet to explain the reasons why it regards the work of that commission so far as hopelessly unfair from a working-class point of view. The right hon. Gentleman must know that that commission, from a working-class point of view, is suspect, and to ask Members on this side of the House to take no action pending the recommendations of a commission, whose previous recommendations have been condemned by the Trades Union Congress, strikes me as the very negation of logic, whether it comes from a trade union leader or from anyone else.
If I am unable to understand the position of the Secretary of State for the Dominions, I am equally unable to understand the position of the miners' representative who spoke earlier from
lower down the Chamber. I listened to him with a great deal of respect, because I know that he has the miners' interests very genuinely at heart, but I do not understand the logic of his argument, for it comes down to this. He said, "I will not go against the Government, but I beg the Minister to have regard to the anomalies that have arisen under the present practice and to do what she can to remedy them." The essence of the Minister's position at present is that, whatever she may desire to do, she has no power to remedy any anomalies whatever. As things are, if an umpire gives a decision, that decision is binding upon the Minister and she cannot, without violating the original Act of Parliament, undo it. I wonder how many of us have taken up with her cases of our own constituents where, in our view, wrong and harmful decisions have been given and how often we have received the reply that the Minister regrets the circumstances of the case that has been put to her but reminds the Member that under present legislation she has no power whatever to modify or to alter the decision that has been given by the umpire.
My hon. Friend who spoke for the miners is really guilty of intellectual dishonesty when he announces that he feels aggrieved about some decision of the umpire and yet appeals to the Minister to do what she cannot do, to modify or alter the decision that the umpire has given. We all know the difficulties that we are under with the umpire's decision and it seems to me within the competence of even a minority Government, where it finds that powers vested in umpires have been used in a sense detrimental to working-class interests, to transfer those powers elsewhere. We are not asked in this Clause to transfer them to the Advisory Committee. If we were, I should be opposing it instead of supporting it. In my view that Advisory Committee, like the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance, is loaded against working-class interests. We are asked to transfer the powers to a Labour Minister of Labour who is in a position to answer to the House for the decisions that are given.
That brings me to the Minister's own contribution to the Debate. I noted down
as carefully as I could the words she used as the main justification for resisting this Amendment and they were that there was such a variety of practice as to the precise point at which a man's work does or does not begin that it is impossible to deal with the matter within the scope of this Bill. That is the Minister's main reason for urging that we should not attempt to deal in the Bill with an anomaly that is admitted in all parts of this side of the House.
Let me compare that plea with the plea that the Minister made for the Bill. When she was pleading with the House of Commons to pass the Bill, she said, in regard to the categories dealt with in Clause 2 (a), (b), (c) and (d), that circumstances varied so much from one part of the country to another, and the circumstances of the individuals varied as between themselves, that you could not deal with this by legislation and you must deal with it for practical purposes by setting up some small advisory body which could give the Minister expert advice upon the handling of particular categories and particular cases. That plea for the Bill, from its point of view, was a good plea and it made a sensible impression upon the House. But, if it is logical, that plea in the one case is the answer to the Minister's argument in the case now before us for, if what she says is correct—and Heaven forbid that I should question it—if there is such an intimate variety of practice as to the point at which a man's work does or does not begin, clearly the same arguments that justify the Bill justify us in moving this Clause. If there is such an infinite variety of practice, why leave in the hands of umpires, who give a series of conflicting rulings, the decision as to what would happen in particular cases?
The Minister's own case for the Bill is the case for this Clause, with the important exception that the Clause at least proposes to put responsibility upon the Minister and not upon an advisory committee constituted in such a way as to be loaded against working-class interests. The second Member who participated in the Debate from the Government began by saying that he was not in any circumstances going against the Government. I want to make my own position clear. I look forward to the time when we shall have a House of Commons which does not care a rap whether it goes against the
Government or not provided it is doing what it thinks is the right thing. I believe it is the right thing to ensure that an anomaly which is admitted in all parts of this side of the House should be dealt with in the Bill.
There are many anomalies in unemployment insurance and, indeed, when an unemployment insurance scheme has ceased to be wholly an insurance scheme and has become partly an insurance scheme and partly a scheme for the administration of State relief—and that is true of the present scheme—there must be anomalies. But the thing I cannot understand is why the Government only chooses to deal with those anomalies which benefit working men and ignores all the anomalies that hit working men. This is one of the anomalies that hit working men, and the only answer that we have had from the Minister is that she does not regard it as an anomaly which is appropriate to be dealt with in this Bill. I understand that in the country the other day she was complaining that on this issue she had met with a good deal of misrepresentation. I am sure I do not want to misrepresent her, and I do not believe my hon. Friends on these benches do. But she misrepresents herself, she misrepresents the whole of her past history, she misrepresents the whole of her work in trade union and labour circles when she proposes a Bill to deal with certain anomalies that benefit working men but resists strongly any attempt to deal with anomalies that hit working man as this particular anomaly does.
I beg her and the Secretary of State for the Dominions, who again has a very long trade union record to his credit, not to rest upon the assurance that they can defeat the Clause in the Lobby. We know they can. We know the Tories will abstain, and there is a strong probability that the Liberals will abstain. If they abstain, the Government can count with automatic certainty upon the defeat of this Clause. But automatic majorities have nothing whatever to do with the merits of the case. What the Front Bench is concerned about is not the results in the Division Lobby but, first, the justice of the particular case and, secondly, the undesirability of putting the Government in a position where it appears to be proposing legislation to deal with certain types of anomalies that
benefit workmen but resisting legislation to deal with other types of anomalies that injure workmen. From both those points of view there ought to be a further statement from the Front Bench before we go into the Lobby.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: For certain reasons, the Government have been impelled, from practically every part of the House, to proceed with this Bill to adjust anomalies where the State, or the Exchequer, or the Fund is to save money. Here we have anomalies which from the Labour point of view should certainly have consideration. They are acknowledged. If the Bill is to deal with anomalies, why is it only to be one class of anomalies? Why is there to be a shutting out of people whose claim is established righteously and yet, with very remarkable skill, reasons are put forward on behalf of the Government why we should take the diplomatic course of leaving the matter over? Why not leave the whole thing over? I know of no pressure from any Labour interests to proceed with this Bill. Is it a matter of life or death for the Government that these things called anomalies should be dealt with while on the great anomaly, the tragic anomaly, the international anomaly, no discussion is to be allowed? This ignominious failure on the part of the Government is a tragedy. Why is it to be impelled by great forces on the question of saving a few million pounds while there are masses of people demanding that they shall have work or substantial maintenance? Pressure is being put here to-day. "Do not put this matter too strongly forward. Leave it till the Commission reports." Why has the Commission pushed forward the matter of this Bill? It is a humiliating spectacle.
The case for the Clause is clear and explicit and, indeed, acknowledged as far as the Government is concerned. I hope there will be a substantial vote from the Labour standpoint in order to bring home to the Government their abject failure concerning unemployment and to emphasise that they are utilising the last moments to deal with the like of this business while the great anomaly is being left alone. Stand up for your interests and go into the Lobby and make the Government feel just as they have been made to feel by the financial interests. Let us stand for the interests of Labour and go into the
Lobby and vote for this Clause and, when the time comes, let us vote against the Bill.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 221.

Division No. 444.]
AYES.
[6.0 p.m.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Kirkwood, D.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Brockway, A. Fenner
Maxton, James
Wise, E. F.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Price, M. P.



Buchanan, G.
Sandham, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Horrabin, J. F.
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Stephen, Campbell



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morley, Ralph


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Ammon, Charles George
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Angell, Sir Norman
Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Arnott, John
Hayday, Arthur
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mort, D. L.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Muff, G.


Barnes, Alfred John
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Barr, James
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Murnin, Hugh


Batey, Joseph
Herriotts, J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hicks, Ernest George
Noel Baker, P. J.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Benson, G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Paling, Wilfrid


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hoffman, P. C.
Palmer, E. T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hollins, A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bromfield, William
Hopkin, Daniel
Perry, S. F.


Brothers, M.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Isaacs, George
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Burgess, F. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pole, Major D. G.


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Potts, John S.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pybus, Percy John


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Chater, Daniel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Church, Major A. G.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Raynes, W. R.


Cluse, W. S.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Richards, R.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Compton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cowan, D. M.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S Molton)
Ritson, J.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lang, Gordon
Romeril, H. G.


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Dalton, Hugh
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Rowson, Guy


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sanders, W. S.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawson, John James
Sawyer, G. F.


Dukes, C.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Scott, James


Duncan, Charles
Leach, W.
Scurr, John


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Edmunds, J. E.
Leonard, W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Egan, W. H.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shield, George William


Elmley, Viscount
Longbottom, A. W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


England, Colonel A.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)
Lunn, William
Shinwell, E.


Foot, Isaac
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Freeman, Peter
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Simmons, C. J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McElwee, A.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McEntee, V. L.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Gibbins, Joseph
McKinlay, A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gill, T. H.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gillett, George M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Glassey, A. E.
Manning, E. L.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gossling, A. G.
Mansfield, W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gould, F.
March, S.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marley, J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gray, Milner
Marshall, Fred
Sorensen, R.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mathers, George
Stamford, Thomas W.


Grenfall, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Matters, L. W.
Strauss, G. R.


Groves, Thomas E.
Middleton, G.
Sullivan, J.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mills, J. E.
Sutton, J. E.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Milner, Major J.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Montague, Frederick
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wallace, H. W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Thurtle, Ernest
Watkins, F. C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Tillett, Ben
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Tinker, John Joseph
Wellock, Wilfred
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Toole, Joseph
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Tout, W. J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Townend, A. E.
West, F. R.



Vaughan, David
Westwood, Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Viant, S. P.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Walker, J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
William Whiteley.


Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions with respect to benefit in the case of special classes of persons.)

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out from the word "who," to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words:
habitually work for less than a full week, and by the practice of the trade in which they are employed nevertheless receive earnings or similar payments of an amount greater than the normal earnings for a full week of persons following the same occupation in the same district.
When this matter was being debated in Committee, the House will remember that a very real point was made by several hon. Members speaking from the benches behind me. Criticism was made by the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Dukes), the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and the hon. Member for Partick (Mr. McKinlay), and I promised after that discussion that I would go most carefully into the points raised and see whether or not the wording of the Clause could be revised in order to meet those objections and difficulties. I want to say straight away that it was my intention that the Clause should cover those points which were raised, but, on further examining the words in the light of the discussion, I came to the conclusion that they were too widely drawn and that it was possible to read into those words as an actuality many of the fears expressed in that Debate. I am therefore submitting to the House a form of re-wording. The wording is, of course, divided on the Order Paper into two parts. I take it that we shall be in order in dealing with the whole question in the one Debate and that when we come to the second Amendment on the Order Paper, there will, with the permission of Mr. Speaker, only be a formal vote taken. The first Amendment in itself in more limited than the words in the Bill, and it is definitely
intended to exclude those people who are working short time because of slackness of trade. It is not intended, although it is a very big problem, to deal with the people who are working short time owing to slackness of trade where instead of dismissing workers the employer has to spread out the employment over the area of workers. That point was discussed by the Commission. It is embodied in the interim report under the phrase, "Methods of industrial organisation." I am purposely not dealing with that class at all, because I realise that, however much the system may be criticised and however much there may be a danger that in the long run it may lead to industrial inefficiency, or for whatever reason criticism may be passed, it is a matter upon which there is such a strong difference of opinion among employers, that I feel it is only possible to deal with it in any satisfactory way in relation to the general recasting of the scheme which cannot take place until the Commission's report is before us. It is just possible that the wisdom of the House may decide that of two evils that is the lesser evil, but, apart from that, I hope that I have made it adequately clear that I am not touching that class of case at all.
There is another class of case with which the Commission specifically deal, and that is the case of the man who very often works for a portion of the week, very intensively. It may be that he works night and day without cessation. It may be that he puts into two days 36 hours' work, and, because of his trade union regulations and the practice in the industry, it is recognised as specially heavy, dangerous, or laborious work, and it is paid for at special rates. It is not related to bad trade at all. It has nothing to do with bad trade, but with the incidence of work in the industry it-self. I do not say that it is very extensive; I do not believe that it affects a large number of persons—but we hold that those persons are not unemployed in
the ordinary sense of the term at all, but that they are, as a matter of fact, intensively employed for a shorter period, that their earnings are regulated accordingly, and that during the rest of the week they do not require work. They are for the most part—I do not say in every case, but generally speaking—the group we had in mind, and the cases given to the Commission were generally of those persons who require the rest of the week for recuperation and recovery from the strain of the special work. I do not think that it was ever contemplated by any responsible trade unionist or by the public at large that those persons, in addition to those exceptional opportunities for work, should also draw two, three, or four days unemployment benefit. It is that particular category that is being dealt with in the Clause that I have brought before the House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. The right hon. Lady says that the class that is intended to be covered by this Clause is that class who work intensively for, say, two days for a period of 36 hours. Is that not the class covered by paragraph (c).

Miss BONDFIELD: It is possible that I did not finish my argument and that there is some misunderstanding. I coupled, or intended to couple, that work with exceptionally high earnings. It may not be work for two days but it may be for three days. It may not be a weekend, but it may be the middle of the week. It may be whenever a ship comes in, or whatever tide serves. It is, therefore, not covered by paragraph (c). It is the point and the only point where we are taking into account substantial earnings, and where the factor of earnings comes in. In connection with paragraph (c) the question of earnings does not arise. It is a question there of employment; the definite fixation of employment, where a person does not desire, for personal or other reasons, to work more than two days a week. Under paragraph (a) come the other categories where, because of the nature of the work, there are substantial earnings in excess of the normal earnings in the trade. It is on the point of substantial earnings that the whole Clause turns.
I have added further restrictive words in the second part of the Clause. Let me
restate the position as to the powers that I am taking in this Bill. In paragraph (a) I have only taken power to deal with those persons whose work is of an intensive nature and is usually paid for at special rates. Those two things go together. Those are generally persons who do not require work during the rest of the week. They require to have time to get over the additional strain of the exceptional work, and it is only during the period of such exceptional earnings that the regulation can apply. If those persons come down to a different position and are in the same category as all the other normal people earning normal ordinary wages, and they become unemployed, they will then receive their benefit precisely as they do now. If they become wholly unemployed during the week, then during that week of total unemployment they will be entitled to receive their benefit. I want to make that perfectly clear, because it is very necessary that it should be clear that this Clause does not deal and is not intended to deal with normal wages spread over a large number of persons because of slackness of trade. That relates to a much larger problem of industrial organisation, with which this Bill does not attempt to deal.
The further restricting words relating to paragraph (a) are included in the Amendment in page 2, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) The regulations made under this Section in relation to persons of the class specified in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) of this Section shall not operate so as to reduce the amount of benefit otherwise payable to any person in respect of any week by more than the amount by which the aggregate of the earnings or similar payments received by him in that week and of the benefit aforesaid exceeds the normal earnings for a full week of persons following the same occupation in the same district.
Those words are put in definitely to prohibit me from making regulations outside the scope of the words in paragraph (a). The criticism may very easily be launched that the area is so small, and it may be asked, is it worth while to attempt to deal with the matter. My answer is, yes, because that is the area in which the sensational critics have found their isolated cases with which to challenge the honesty and decency of unemployed men. It is because I want to track down those cases and to present
to the House the number of those cases, which I believe to be small, and because I want to state precisely what the earnings are—they are often greatly exaggerated—that I have put down this Amendment. I recognise that the Clause will be difficult to work, that it will be a most awkward piece of administrative machinery, but I am honestly going to make an attempt, if the House will permit me to do so, in the interests of the insured persons, because we have to lie down under the slanderous statements about men earning £8, £10 and £12 a week, and drawing unemployment benefit. We know that such isolated cases do exist, and nobody wants them to exist. There is not a genuine trade unionist on these benches who wants them to exist.
Therefore, I am going to make an honest effort to segregate that type of case and see whether by regulation we can work out a system by which men who are definitely employed at a wage which is a full week's wage, although they are able to compress their work in a shorter period of time than a full week, can be dealt with. That is the class of case for which this Clause is drafted. Therefore it is necessary to have it specially drafted, because it rests upon the amount of earnings. It may be that some hon. Members will want me to say categorically to what trades it will apply. I cannot say to what trades it will apply. It is an unknown area. I am only asking for power to explore. I do not know, except in one or two outstanding instances, in what direction we shall find these cases. I have tried by the wording of the Amendment be make the matter so clear that there shall be no mistake about what we mean.
There is one further explanation that I might give as to the period which will be regarded as habitual. I do not intend to try to regulate for the man who gets an exceptional week's work. That is not the case. It will have to be shown by the register that the man has been drawing benefit habitually for some period of time. I am not in a position this afternoon to say what that period of time will be, but I have in my mind four weeks or six weeks as an indication. We shall have to make a regulation which will lay down the period which is to be examined before any benefit is stopped.
At the same time, we must safeguard the position, so that when a man ceases to be on the well-paid job and reverts to a less well-paid job, he will take up his position under the insurance scheme precisely where he leaves off, and he will not be penalised when he is wholly unemployed. I hope the House will accept the wording of the Amendment. I thank hon. Members behind me for their criticisms, which have enabled me to see where the weakness of the Clause lay and to try to put it into a form which will limit my powers to the extent of trying to deal with that particular class of high-paid wage-earner who nobody believes ought to take unemployment benefit in addition to high earnings.

Sir HENRY BETTERTON: I only propose to take up the time of the House for a few minutes. No useful purpose would be served by attempting to conceal from ourselves or the country that the Amendment moved by the right hon. Lady has entirely altered the scope of the Bill and has, for all practical purposes, cut out paragraph (a). The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) some time ago congratulated the right hon. Lady on having vindicated her authority by refusing to yield to pressure. If one thing could be more certain than another it is that the right hon. Lady has yielded to pressure and has given way.

Mr. THORNE: To common sense.

Sir H. BETTERTON: She has given way to the pressure which was put upon her in the early hours of the morning. Those of us who were there will remember that an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), in which he sought to strike out paragraph (a). The hon. Member has been described as a rebel. Whether he be a rebel or not it is perfectly certain that hon. Members opposite were only too anxious to garner the fruits of rebellion which he himself has raised. The right hon. Lady has given way to the whole demand that was made by the hon. Member for Gorbals. When the Bill was originally produced it was perfectly clear in paragraph (a) that the regulations which were to be made covered
earnings or similar payments.… of such substantial amount as may be so prescribed.
When those words were inserted, either the right hon. Lady did not understand what they meant or she was genuinely anxious to deal with the anomalies which that paragraph (a) was intended to cover. It is now clear that she intends to do nothing of the kind. Therefore, we on this side who have always had our suspicions that the Government have no intention of really facing up to the position are fully justified in the suspicions which we held, and which we think are now confirimed. I have given the best attention that I could to this complicated matter and it docs not seem to me that the wording of the Amendment covers anything at all. The cases which are covered, if they exist, are of infinitesimal dimensions. It does not even cover the case which has been quoted over and over again and which was quoted in the report of the Royal Commission, that of the coal trimmers. We had illustrations of coal trimmers who pooled their earnings and for a three days' week got £4 or £5 and drew benefit for the rest of the week. As far as I can see, those cases are not covered. If we look at the wording of the Amendment, we note that it says:
or similar payments received by him in that week and of the benefit aforesaid exceeds the normal earnings for a full week of persons following the same occupation in the same district.
The only result will be that coal trimmers in the future, as in the past, will work their three days per week and get their wages of £5, that is, the figure mentioned in the report of the Royal Commission, and get their unemployment benefit for the other days of the week. I should have thought that the number of persons who are habitually working short time and earning more than the normal earnings for a full week's work are infinitesimal, and if that is the case then the classes covered by this proposal are absolutely negligible. Therefore, the Bill, as it is now altered by this Amendment, goes but a very short way indeed to deal with the anomalies referred to by the Royal Commission. It is clear that the Government have very little intention of dealing with these anomalies, and it is also clear that the Government have done exactly what they did in 1929 when they yielded to the first attack by the hon. Member for Gorbals and the hon. Member for Bridgeton,
which has resulted in the present situation. They are yielding again on this occasion to an attack from the same quarter, and are reducing the value of the Bill to practically nothing.

Mr. HAYDAY: I desire to express my thanks, and the thanks of those who act with me as industrial representatives in this House, to the Minister of Labour for the readiness she has shown to meet what were undoubtedly very serious and disturbing thoughts as the Bill was originally drafted. When the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Dukes) raised this question in the early hours of Thursday morning last, and it was seen where our fears really lay, I felt that we should ultimately be able, after consultation, not by bringing pressure, to find words which would meet our fears. The proposal now before the House is one which has given entire satisfaction, and dispels many of the doubts and fears which at one time existed. I was pleased to hear the right hon. Lady say that all short-time workers in industries which work short time in consequence of slackness of trade are to be placed entirely outside the possibility of a regulation being made which would deny them any portion of their legitimate claims to insurance benefit on such days as they are unemployed.
It is well known that trade union officials and the great industrial organisations have come to arrangements for short-time work, so that rather than a large number of men should be totally unemployed they will share such work as there is, in order that all should participate in part earnings and part unemployment insurance benefit. It enables them to make a provision for maintenance which they otherwise would be unable to make. In addition, the workers will be more efficient when trade eventually picks up. There was a fear that the piece-worker and the task worker, the payment-by-result worker, on short time might have been brought within the original wording of the Bill, but that is now set aside. In the engineering trade, as I understand, it does not follow that three days on piece-work or payment by result will, whatever the measure of monetary return, interfere with their right to draw their unemployment benefit, because it is an arrangement of labour
due to slackness of work. Whatever money results as a consequence of their working on piece rates, or payment by results, it cannot in any way interfere with their right to draw unemployment benefit for the days they are unemployed. Therefore, that sweeps away those categories which we felt were never intended to be, but which might be brought within the scope of a regulation.
I agree with the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton) that there have been a great many slanderous statements broadcast about men going home with many pounds per week and drawing unemployment benefit. I had to stand cross-examination before the Royal Commission on this point, but when you inquire as to the volume of such abuses all you get is one isolated case, to which someone had called the attention of somebody else, who called the attention of somebody else, and eventually a Member of Parliament had had his attention called to it and he at once felt that it represented a whole class of abuse. I am convinced that you will find, under the proposal now before the House, very few proved cases which will warrant any regulation at all being made to deal with what the public outside has been led to believe is a gross abuse of unemployment benefit. There will be very few cases which will be able to stand examination from the advisory committee. I should imagine that before the Minister of Labour submits a draft regulation dealing with any half dozen or a dozen cases, which might now be brought within the scope of this proposal, she will be able to ascertain what truth there may be in those cases, and if she is satisfied that there is nothing in them, there will be no need for her to issue a draft regulation for the consideration of the advisory committee. If she feels that she would like the aid of an inquiry by the advisory committee then they have the right to call in representatives of the very men whose employment benefit might be threatened.
I appreciate the action of the Minister of Labour in this matter, and the way she has met our fears. She has done so fully, and in a way which we might expect. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Rushcliffe that the sting of a possible misapplication of
the Clause as originally drafted has now been removed, and that the proposal has made the Bill almost innocuous. There may be no value in it now. It may be said, If that is so, why have it at all? I think it is necessary for the reason which the right hon. Lady has given, in order that, if such statements as to abuse are again published, she will be able to take them up in defence of the unemployed. I call this proposal a proposal for the protection of the unemployed, because I am certain that the cases will be so few that it will be hardly necessary to issue a regulation under it. I hope the House will give its unanimous consent to the proposal.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am sorry if I have to break the harmony of our proceedings. I have listened to the Minister of Labour with the utmost interest, and also to the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday). I understood that this Bill had been thoroughly examined and had obtained the approval of responsible trade union representatives. The Second Reading was taken, and we reached the Committee stage; but there was no suggestion from any representative of the trade unions that there was anything wrong with the Bill, which is one to remove anomalies which no one could defend. To-day we have the Minister of Labour telling us that when the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Dukes) and others let her understand their apprehensions with regard to this provision, she decided to see whether their apprehensions were really justified, and she has now introduced this new proposal.
There was never a word from the Minister of Labour for the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who made it clear in the Committee what the original words in the Bill were going to do. There was not the grace of a single word of thanks to the hon. Member for Gorbals because of the explanation that he gave. While it may be a matter of kudos, at least it would have been only gracious and only ordinary courtesy if the Member who was primarily responsible for making clear the danger in connection with the previous words, had not been specifically excluded from the thanks. The Minister has now given us an assurance that this provision is not
going to apply to general short-time workers who are on short time owing to industrial depression. I do not know whether that will relieve the apprehensions of representatives of trade unions in this House. I have here a report which represents the point of view of the Trades Union Congress. It is what the Trades Union Congress sends to speakers and to Members of the Labour party. On page 1568 there is this:
If it is true that there are short-time workers who earn a normal week's wages in three days and draw unemployment benefit for the other days, it is an anomaly that the trade union movement refuses to defend, and leaves it to the I.L.P. to defend it.
The Minister of Labour is not here; the Parliamentary Secretary is not here. I am fortunate, perhaps, that the Attorney-General is here. [Interruption.] I notice that some hon. Members rather resent my statement about the Minister of Labour not being here. Far be it from me to suggest that an hon. Member or a Minister should be here all the time throughout a Debate. They are only human. But I want to point out that this question arose primarily out of a criticism that was directed to this Bill by some of my hon. Friend and myself.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): The right hon. Lady has been in her place here continuously since before four o'clock. I suggest that at least it would be courteous to acknowledge that fact.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am very pleased to take a lesson in courtesy from my hon. Friend. I do not press the point. What I was wanting to get at in drawing attention to the fact that the Minister was not here was that, while I agree that a person cannot sit an unlimited time on the Front Bench, it is of the utmost importance, in view of the statement that I have read, to try to get at what is really going to be the position now. The Minister of Labour has given us an assurance that it is not proposed to deal with short-time workers who are on short time on account of industrial depression. I want to know whether it will deal with short-time workers who earn a normal week's wages in three days. Perhaps the Member of the Government who is to reply
will answer that question. If short-time workers who earn a normal week's wages in three days are included, it appears to me that the apprehensions of hon. Members on these benchs may be awakened again—the apprehensions of representatives of the miners and of those employed in the shipbuilding industry. We have had the assurance of the Minister, but assurances are not sufficient. Right throughout this Unemployment Insurance legislation we have found that that is the case again and again. In 1924 the present Secretary for War gave me an assurance with regard to "not genuinely seeking work," and I had not the slightest doubt that that assurance would be fully implemented, but we had the sad experience of the operation of the "not genuinely seeking work" provision. I want the House to look at the new words in this Clause:
Habitually worked for less than a full week.
The Minister agrees that the interpretation of "habitual" will be a matter of great importance. She said that she was not sure whether it would be four weeks or six weeks. Suppose that we take the wider period of six weeks, and read it as:
persons who for a period of six weeks work, for less than a full week,
and then by the practice of the trade in which they are employed receive earnings or similar payments of an amount greater than the normal earnings for a full week of persons following the same occupation in the same district. Suppose that you have them working less than a normal week. Suppose that you have a person who is employed in the one week for four days and in the other week for five days. You might have short-time ruling in a series of pits in a given district, while in another series of pits they are not on short-time. For six weeks the pits have been on short-time. Then the miners will come under this provision? The second point of importance is whether the people concerned received earnings or similar payments of an amount greater than the normal earnings for a full week of persons following the same occupation in the same district. Suppose that the larger proportion of pits in a district are on day wages and the normal earnings are the earnings of the worker who is on day wages. Suppose also that some of the people on short time are working on
piece rates and are able in those nine days in the fortnight to earn in each of the weeks on an average more than the normal earnings of the people who are on day wages. I take it that those miners are included? Before your period of six weeks occurs that is to rule—the interpretation of "habitual."
The persons concerned in an industry may have had previous unemployment which has enabled them to fulfil the conditions with regard to the observance of the waiting period. I believe that those workers will come in. I ask the representatives of the Government what is there in these words? We have had the Minister's assurance but everything depends on what is really in the words of the Bill when it becomes an Act. Possibly the Minister of Labour will tell me that she does not know. When we asked for a concrete instance, who are the people who will be concerned, the Minister said that she did not know. She knows only that it will not apply to short-time workers who are on short time owing to industrial depression. But she is going to embark upon this exploration, and perhaps the exploration will take her into the inclusion of these people who are on short time. "What then is to happen? [An HON. MEMBER: "Perhaps!"] It is only "perhaps," but it has been "perhaps" pretty much ail along in connection with this Bill. In any case I was not the first to use the word "perhaps." I asked the Minister to whom it would apply. I asked "Will it apply to so-and-so?" She said, "Perhaps." I want to get something sufficiently definite so that we may know where we are going. Let us be given concrete instances. We have been told that the unemployed have been subject to many slanders. There have been misstatements in the Press about members of the working classes who have been earning big money and drawing unemployment benefit, and when we have tried to find out who they were we could not get any exact information. It was "perhaps" there were some people. That was what the Minister told us. Because "perhaps" there were these people, we are obliged to have this Bill and this Clause and this explanation.
7.0 p.m.
I would point out to the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) that the special case he gave with regard to the administration of unemployment insurance, may still get bene-
fit under the operation of these new words. If a man earns £7 or £8 a week in three days, and it is less than the normal earnings of that class of worker in the week, then he goes on drawing benefit. The one anomaly that worries people is not going to be dealt with in the Bill. The Minister would have been far better advised to have cut out this paragraph altogether. We would then have had more than a simple assurance; we would be in a definite position, and there would be no "perhaps" about it. Miners, shipyard workers and other workers on short time, through no fault of their own, would not then be in the dangerous position in which they may be under the operation of this paragraph.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Undoubtedly this position is extraordinarily difficult and complex. After considerable study of the Amendment. I do not like it, and would like some more information as to what it really means. I should have thought that the powers contained in the Bill would have been allowed full play with the classes intended to be included in paragraph (a). I was not present at the Debate in the early hours of the morning, and perhaps speak with some lack of knowledge of the information then given to the Committee, but speaking for myself, if the effect of this paragraph is that, if any worker is entitled in two, three or four days to receive the normal wage and is also entitled to receive benefit, then it is entirely against the decision of the House on Second Reading.
As far as I read the Clause, that is not the effect of it. Let me see if I understand the effect. It may be this: A man earns less than the normal amount in two or three days' work. As the Clause originally stood, he might be deprived of receiving any benefit at all, and this Amendment is designed to form something like a sliding scale whereby on the unemployed days he might receive some part of the benefit, which would enable him, at the end of that week or whenever he claims it, to receive wages loss the normal plus the benefit bringing him up to the normal. I do not know whether that is the intention or the effect of the Amendment or not. If that is so, then I agree there is a considerable amount to be said for it, but, if, as is
suggested, a worker who earns the normal wage of his avocation in two or three days is then enabled to get unemployment benefit, then that is what the House did not intend when it passed the Second Reading of this Bill.
I would ask another question. Take the case of the coal trimmers, who are a very special class. They do not belong to the ordinary trade unions, and they have a union which operates at the coal loading ports. At nearly all the coal loading ports—certainly at that with which I am acquainted—they have an average payment of £4 10s. a week, which the man gets whether he works or not. Is the effect of this Amendment still that in those circumstances he is going to receive benefit because he receives the normal wage? That is not intended, and ought not to be intended. If that is the effect of the Clause, there is going to be no mitigation of what I regard as an abuse of the Acts, that men earning at that rate should still be entitled to benefits. In that case I could not support the Amendment because, if I did so, I would be going back on the whole of my opinions. I know how difficult the question is and I am sure my hon. Friend above the Gangway appreciates it also.
It is a very serious matter that the insurance system is now being largely operated by employers and employed as a subsidy for wages. Let us be perfectly frank and face it. It may be that the present position of the country demands that. What are you going to put in its place. It is a very serious matter, and it becomes a matter requiring grave consideration that, where in any industry these high wages are earned for a short period of work, you are still going to continue benefit for that week. The House never intended that on the Second Reading, whatever may have happened in Committee. It was not the intention of the Government when the Bill was introduced. I shall listen to what the representatives of the Government have to say before I decide into which Lobby I shall go.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): When the Bill was going through its Second Reading, the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) called attention to the
fact that, in his opinion, the wording of some parts of it was such as to bring into its purview classes different from and in addition to those we said we intended to cover in the Bill. In the Second Reading Debate I told the House, on behalf of the Government quite straightforwardly, that the wording would be carefully examined and that, if it were found that classes were covered which it was not intended to cover, steps would be taken to alter the wording of the Bill in order to make it perfectly plain that the four classes of which we spoke were the only classes we intended to cover in the Bill. When the Bill was going through Committee, there were criticisms from all parts of the Committee and fears that the drafting was still of such a character as to make it possible if not probable that people whom we never intended to touch, would be brought within the Clauses of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Minister gave a very definite promise that before the Report stage she would draft words which would carry out the intention of the House, which was that the ordinary unemployed person working for normal wages—either short time or wholly unemployed—would not be interfered with, and that the only person to be interfered with would be the person who systematically worked short time in a concentrated way for high wages that were higher than the normal wages, and that the wording would be found to put that definitely into the Bill. This wording does meet the contention which was raised in Committee, and implements the promise made by myself on Second Reading, by the Dominion Secretary, and over and over again by the Minister.
What does this Clause say? It says in effect that there shall be no interference with any person's benefit unless that person is habitually working short time to begin with, so that the miner and the textile worker who work short time here and there and who, when they do work, work at the normal wages of their trade, the building trade worker who works short time at the normal wages of his trade—all these will never be touched, because they are not working systematic short time at a high rate of wages which gives them more than an average rate of wages for a week's work for the short time they work. I claim
that our wording deliberately and expressly excludes all those genuine unemployed workers for whom so much justified apprehension was expressed on Second Reading and in Committee by Members in all parts of the House beginning with the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove and ending with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The intention of the House as a whole was that it was keenly anxious to find a way of not interfering with the genuinely unemployed worker, whether unemployed or on short time, if he was getting the ordinary wages of his trade for the time he works.
Let us see what are the difficulties in the way. If you begin to try to tackle the man who is working for these abnormal wages at the wages end, you find yourself immediately in this difficulty, that you have to ask anybody who comes for benefit, "What did you earn last week?" Unless you ask every person, you cannot track the person you want. If you Start at the wages end, obviously the Department will be swollen to an enormous extent, and the probability is that the extra Departmental staff will cost more than any savings you could hope for. Let me repeat that neither the Minister nor the Government have ever taken any responsibility for any assumed sum of savings that can come from these Measures. We do not know, and nobody knows. But everybody is aware that there are cases which 99 per cent. of the people of this country believe ought not to be getting insurance pay. We say we are going to make an effort to weed out, if we can, those cases from the cases of the genuine unemployed men or women whose benefit we do not intend to touch. The persons who are getting benefit, when people think they ought not to have that benefit, are doing more harm to the unemployment insurance scheme, and in the future may do more harm to the unemployed workers, than would be done if we cleared out some of what I, at any rate, consider to be the undesirables—undesirables in the sense that they are undesirable on the unemployment pay roll.
Having these problems and finding that it was impossible to tackle them from the wages end, we had to find a way of discovering the people who were getting benefits which they ought not to have,
and how, so to speak, to catch them in the net. First, we say that there should be a period in which short time has been worked which will be sufficient to make it evident that the short time is systematic. That is number one. Then, in the second place, we say that the wages earned must be so markedly above the ordinary wages for that class of work as to put the people earning them in a special category altogether. First, it must be systematic short time—

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question?

Mr. SHAW: I would rather the hon. Member allowed me to proceed. I am trying to state the case as clearly and distinctly as I can, and then the House can decide on the merits of the case. Let me try to summarise what I have been saying. First, in order that we shall not touch the genuine unemployed man or woman who happens to be working short time, there has to be a sufficient length of time to show that the short time is systematic. Secondly, in order to avoid touching the man or woman like the miner, the steel-worker, or the textile worker, who is working short time at the normal wages, and who must not be touched or interfered with in any way, we say that the wages earned must be above the normal week's wages in that trade. Having wiped out the categories to which I have referred, there only remains the category of people who are, systematically, working short time in an intensive way and making in that short time as much as or more than a full week's wages, for the same type of work, earned by a person working in the ordinary way. Like has to be compared with like. An hon. Member has mentioned coal-trimmers. I think that we can compare like with like in the case of the coal-trimmers. If we cannot in one district exactly compare like with like, it is possible to find the normal rate paid for the normal work, apply the normal number of working hours and find the normal wages for that trade in that district. I do not think, myself, that there is much difficulty in meeting that case.
That is the Government's position. First, there is a frank and full acknowledgment that no genuine unemployed worker's benefits shall be tampered with
simply because that worker happens to be one of the better-paid workers. Secondly, he shall not be considered to be a short-time worker until he has worked habitual short time for a length of time which proves that it is no mere trade matter, which is, as it were, here to-day and gone to-morrow, but is continuous over a period of time, and thirdly the wages must be of an abnormal character. That is what we have tried to do. We have gone further and have said this: that there shall be no interference with any benefit whatever until the wages for the short time are more than the normal full week's wages for that work. Then, we say is the time to come in, as regards benefit for a worker who is getting more for a part-time week than he would have got if he were working the whole time. Is there anything wrong about that? Assume that I am a carder and that my ordinary normal wage is £3 15s. a week. I am systematically working short time. My benefit cannot be touched at all, if the sum I am drawing in wages and benefit is less than £3 15s. a week. But this Clause says that when the wages get beyond £3 15s., with benefit, then the benefit can be worked down to what the worker would have had if he were working a week in the ordinary normal way.
I am the last in the world to minimise the difficulties of drafting a Clause of this kind. I made an appeal with all the strength of which I was capable during the Second Reading Debate that the Government should be given power to deal with this matter. I called attention to the fact that on many occasions we had found forms of words which appeared to be absolutely watertight; we had put them into Statutes, and we immediately found that the very words which we thought most watertight, proved to be very leaky indeed. We deliberately asked for elasticity in the matter of these exclusions in order that we might correct any risk that this would be applied in a way in which nobody ever intended that it should be applied. Let me say on this point as to the necessity for more elasticity, that this is an experiment and let me call attention to the experience which we have had in previous cases with certain words. Is there anyone, out of Bedlam, who would have thought
there would be any difficulty with words such as "not genuinely seeking work"? Could anybody have dreamt that those words could have been twisted into meaning anything except that if a person was seeking work that person was entitled to benefit. Yet the decisions given under these words were of such a character as to cause the House almost in its entirety to rise against them and insist upon them being struck out.
I never dreamt, and I do not think that anybody in the House dreamt, that it was possible to come to conclusions under those words such as were reached. This elasticity will give the Minister power, if a regulation is not applied in the spirit intended, to redress the matter and I appeal to the House most strongly on this ground—that this experiment, itself, will probably form a very valuable foundation for any alteration, any redrafting, any remodelling of the law with regard to unemployment insurance. It is essential, I think, that we should have a breathing spell in which we can with the full knowledge of the House—that is an essential point—be able to conduct these experiments because I believe that out of them we shall come to methods and forms which will safeguard us against many of the things that have gone on in the past. Finally, may I repeat, that systematic habitual short-time is the first preliminary, abnormal wages is the second, and the third is that there should be no interference at all with the benefits of the ordinary unemployed person and no reduction of benefit so long as the person entitled to the benefit is not getting more than the normal week's wages for the trade in which he is employed. I hope that now we may come to a decision upon this Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I desire to elicit some further information in regard to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) examined the position very closely, and I wish to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in his Second Reading speech he said that there were men earning £5 or £6 a week who were securing benefit. He also said that he had cases of persons who, for 17 weeks, were earning £5 a week and for 10 weeks earning £4 a week and so on, and he said that those people ought not to be receiving benefit. The
right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) in reply to that speech said that he agreed, substantially, that such persons ought not to be getting benefit. May I point out that those people earning £10 or £8 or £7 or £6 or £5 a week can now get benefit. It is said that they cannot get benefit but I will prove that they can get benefit. Supposing a man who earns, in six normal days, £10 a week, suddenly finds himself earning £8 in three days. That man's earnings of £8, plus his benefit, come to less than £10 and so he must get benefit, according to this definition. I ask anybody to deny that that is the ease. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall talked about people earning £7 or £10 in three days.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I never mentioned £10. I did give the earnings of a man for 17 weeks, and it was only that case to which I referred, as being rather typical of a large number of other cases.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, but supposing that the man has worked three days a week for 17 weeks, and has earned on an average £7 or £8 a week—fix whatever sum you like—for the 17 weeks. It is not unreasonable to assume that that man in six days would earn £10. He actually earns £8 in three days and £8 plus his unemployment benefit is less than £10, and so he gets unemployment benefit.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Would it not depend upon how the reckoning was made? It is not made clear whether the normal wage is to be reckoned by the week, the day or the hour.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Amendment says the "normal earnings for a week" and I take the normal week's wages and I say that that man normally would earn £10 a week. I challenge any hon. Member on the point. If his normal wages are £10 and he earns £8 in three days and if the £8, plus benefit, comes to less than £10, then he gets benefit. I was asked would I defend giving benefit to a man earning £8 a week. I reply that that man is getting benefit now and I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to deny it if they can. He is getting benefit now and he is going to get benefit under' this Amendment, but the joke, is that, under this Amendment, people with £2 a week can be denied benefit. I put
the case of a miner whose normal wage is £2 a week. He gets three days' wages. His benefit for three days would be 16s. Take 16s. from £2; that leaves 24s. It he earns 24s. in three days, he gets no benefit.

Mr. SHAW: I think I stated specifically that this could not apply to the man who was working at his normal wages.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Take the case of the miner, and assume that he earns £2 a week. That is his normal week's earnings. Suppose he earns 30s. in three days; he is entitled to 16s. unemployment benefit. Therefore he gets £2 6s. If his normal wage is £2, he can get no benefit. The right hon. Gentleman says no. He says that it is earnings plus unemployment benefit—

Mr. SHAW: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has read the first part of the Amendment. He is dealing with the second part as if the first did not exist.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I tried to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman to ask him whether "normal week's earnings" includes benefit or not, and he says it includes it. This is the position in which you are going to be in regard to men who work three days a week and who earn a normal wage in three days. I will assume that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong, though I think that he is right, because be knows something about Unemployment Insurance, and I think he was right when he said that it includes benefit. Take the case of the miner who earns £2; that is his normal earnings in three days. Though he is living at a shocking rate of pay he is deprived of benefit. A man with £7 is going to get benefit if it is less than his normal wages. Take the class of cases of men who habitually work three or four days a week, such as the ship repairers in the shipbuilding yards. They habitually work for less than a full week. What constitutes "habitual" in law? In my view, a man who has been a ship repairer all his life and habitually works three days a week, is a habitual worker in the eyes of the law. He is a habitual short-time worker; he has done it all his life, but that man will be definitely cut out of benefit because he is a habitual short-time worker. It may be said that that
is how the umpire would decide it; but I know the umpire and I have given this considerable study. What will happen is this. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) and all who come in contact with ship repairers know it. I have worked at it myself. I have worked on Friday night, Saturday night and Sunday, earning £10, but then I would not work for months. I was a habitual short-time worker, and I could not get unemployment benefit, although my wages for a long period were very low. If a man is a habitual short-time worker, and has followed it all his life, he should get benefit.
It is said in reply to this criticism that this is not an equalisation of wages Bill, but a Bill to abolish anomalies and to wipe out differentiations. Here, however, you are going to create greater differentiations, and the Labour party is now saying that we are to punish the miner and refuse benefit to him because world conditions have lowered his wages; yet they are going to grant another man benefit because world conditions operate in his favour. The reason why the miner's wage is low and the other man's wage is high, is not because one has a greater need than the other, but because they are faced with great economic forces; and the Labour party is now Baying that the people who through economic forces are compelled to work for low wages must be punished by having no benefit, while in other cases where they have been able to enforce high wages, they are to get it.
We have been subject to a certain amount of criticism. I am the last man to complain of criticism, although I felt keenly one remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, when he asked if I were a member of a trade union. That was a fearful thing to say, because I joined my union in the early days, and it is well known that I am a member. The other thing about megalomania I give to him as a present. The Trades Union Congress and the Labour party have issued notes in which they say that it is true that certain short-time workers can earn in three days a sum equal to the normal wage, and that they should not get benefit. Here you are giving them benefit. Last
Sunday they were not good enough to get it; to-day they are good enough. In this House minorities will be told that they must not fight, but must carry on their discussions in the confines of a room upstairs. If ever there was justification for fighting, it is here, because but for the publicity of our fight, no concession would have been made. The fight was here in the House of Commons, and a big concession has been won. I welcome it, although I wish that we had been given more.
I put this last point to the right hon. Gentleman. Six weeks is to be taken as the normal time. In many callings men work for six different employers very often. A coal trimmer might go to six different stevedores. I have known a coal trimmer work in six weeks for 14 different employers. If a man disputes that he is getting more than his normal earnings, and is asked for proof, the only proof is in the books of the various firms for which he has worked. In such a case as I have mentioned you would have to search through the books of 14 different firms, and bring it up to the court of referees, and God knows when the man would get benefit. In Income Tax procedure, we know that certain things become so impossible to calculate and to measure that the Income Tax people say that administratively it is so costly as not to make it worth while. Whatever may have been said of it before, this provision is now extended so much that it has become administratively stupid.
I am one of those who believe that the managers of Employment Exchanges should be kept out of the firing line as much as possible. They have a very rotten job. I almost live at the Exchange when I am at home, and I never go there without feeling a bit ashamed of myself—the way in which the managers are badgered between me and the unemployed and the higher-up officials. We ought to try to make the administration simple, so that it can be easily understood by applicants. What are we doing now? Every time there is a wage dispute the officials will be put right into the firing line. The new administration will be costly and irksome, and will create ill feeling. A man with £2 a week will be refused benefit, and next door to him will be a man earning much more who will get benefit.
It is said that we need different regulations for different districts. In my Division we need a different regulation for every family! I represent a good number of dockers, some shipbuilders and some engineers. An engineer's normal wage may be £2 10s. He is cut out when he earns over £2 10s. Above him, in the same tenement building, may live a docker who earns £5, but because his normal wage is £8 he will get benefit, whereas the poor devil down the stair is refused benefit because he has earned his normal wage of £2 10s. And we say this Measure is wiping out anomalies! It is nonsense! I pay the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) this compliment. He has a wonderful knowledge of human psychology, which has carried him through times without number. I wish he would apply it here. It is wanted! We have now conceded so much that there are no savings to be made; administratively the thing is almost impossible to work; and for the sake of everybody concerned and for the credit of the great movement to which he and I belong, and which is greater than any individual, we ought to drop this paragraph (a).

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) told us that he was welcoming a concession, but I do not think anybody would have guessed it. I rather thought he was trying to show that no good thing could come out of Preston. Would not some of his misgivings be removed if he considered this Measure as not laying down hard-and-fast regulations whereby A and B will be definitely and by this Measure excluded from benefit, but as laying down certain limits within which the Minister may issue regulations? In justice to the Minister and in justice to his own Front Bench he ought to assume that the regulations will not be made without regard to common sense. What is being done in this Amendment is to narrow the limits within which the regulations can be made, and for that reason I welcome it. Hitherto, I have taken no part at all in the discussion of this Bill, and I had not intended to do so now, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) has intervened to express his opinion I felt it my bounden duty to indicate mine. I
have felt the whole way through that the attack that can be made on this Bill, the attack made by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite and the attack made from these benches by the hon. Member for one of the divisions Newcastle on the Second Reading, is that as an amomalies Bill it is not dealing with all the anomalies but leaving a Jot out. At any rate let us be glad of this, that when it was found that the Bill would create a host of new anomalies, such as would have arisen if paragraph (a) had not been unaltered, the Government have taken steps to introduce an Amendment.
It is said that by this Amendment we shall cut down the number of people dealt with to such a small number that it will be negligible. Personally, I never thought the numbers affected by the Bill would be very large. I have heard much talk about striking cases, and one knows that they exist, but I have never taken them as being typical of a very large number of cases, only I believed that it was necessary to take action, in order to save the unemployment insurance system from continual misrepresentation. In districts where there are not many unemployed misapprehensions are easily spread, and a great deal can be made of individual cases. Let them be dealt with by all means, but do not let the Government be stampeded by the unpopularity created by these cases into including within the ambit of the Bill a whole host of cases they never meant to deal with. I welcome the Amendment as a sign that the Government are not going to be stampeded, but are ready to give careful consideration to every word of the Bill even at this late hour, and I hope the Minister will show a similar spirit when dealing with the wording of the regulations she has to issue. I heartily welcome this Amendment. It is the first time I have spoken on the Bill, but I felt it to be necessary to say so much.

Mr. THOMAS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and other hon. Members, which proposes to leave out paragraph (b), was very fully discussed on the Committee stage. I understand there are certain hon. Members who attach a good deal of importance to it. If there is only a very short discussion on it, I have no objection to calling it. The discussion on this Amendment might be combined with the discussion on the Amendment to leave out paragraph (c), on the understanding that a Division would then be taken about paragraph (c) without further discussion.

Mr. BECKETT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out paragraph (b).
I gladly accept your suggestion, Sir, that the discussion of this Amendment should be as brief as possible, but, if I may be allowed to say so, I think your statement that there was considerable discussion upon it on the Committee stage is not quite correct. I would also like to inform you and the House that that discussion did not come from the Government Bench. The Minister replied replied to myself, the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) and other friends of mine in a speech occupying something less than 12 lines of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The only reason which the right hon. Lady could give for refusing to accept the Amendment was that she said the paragraph was part of a definite agreement. She did not say with whom, and I do not believe it could possibly have been the Trades Union Congress to whom she was alluding. I am hoping that more consideration will be given to our Amendment to-day, because although when we started this Debate we were a very small group on these benches, we are rapidly getting adherents from all sections. The Attorney-General, the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for the Dominions have all qualified to be reported to the disciplinary committee of the party for the things they have said about this Bill—only they said them about a a fortnight after we did. It is on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT that they have made statements as to the
things this Bill was going to do such as my hon. Friends on these benches would not have dared to make. Paragraph (b) is one which we regard with the greatest apprehension. We consider that the dangers under it are just as great as were those under the paragraph which has just been amended by the Minister, and while the dangers in paragraph (a) affected only large bodies of organised workers, who have many capable spokesmen in this House, those affected under (b) are not people who have that kind of representation here.
From personal experience I am concerned about shop assistants. What is the position of the shop assistant in these days? There are many thousands whose employment is becoming confined, practically, to a short period at Christmas, the first three weeks of the big sales, and perhaps a week before each of the Bank Holidays. For the rest of the time they are plodding round the big shopping districts on that heart-breaking job of asking to see the "engager," being told there is no work for them, and going plodding away again. Is that a seasonal occupation? I feel convinced that the right hon. Lady has not so far forgotten her connection with the retail trade that she would claim for a moment that these people should not get benefit. But the longer we have discussed this Bill the more we have discovered that however benevolent are the intentions of the Minister of Labour—and I do not doubt them—the draftsmen of her Department seem quite incapable of getting them into regulations which will mean only what she wants and nothing more. I think she would not dream of depriving these thousands of poor people out of benefit, but whatever way we try to read paragraph (b) I cannot see how it can be construed by any Court or any Umpire as not meaning that people in those occupations will have to be deprived of benefit.
It is a pity that we have come to the Report stage before the Government are prepared to admit the loose and casual way in which the Bill has been drafted, and that we have to strain your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, at this late hour, in order to try to get an answer to our points. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough East (Miss Wilkinson) was much concerned during the Committee
stage with dressmakers, milliners' assistants, etc., who are members of the union which she represents. After the right hon. Lady had made her Second Reading speech, in which she alluded to shop assistants in a rather slighting way—

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg your pardon! Can you give me the reference which justifies that observation?

8.0 p.m.

Mr. BECKETT: The right hon. Lady was quoting the case of workers with whom the Bill was intended to deal—I have not her exact words here, but I remember their purport very well indeed, for they made a great impression on me. Her words were that there were many shop assistants who were workers who went in part time, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) challenged her on that. I went out and got on the telephone to the only three recognised trade unions representing retail workers of which I knew. The responsible officials of each of those three unions told me that they did not know of a single case of that kind in the whole of their experience. They were officials of the Shop Assistants' Union which is represented by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Mr. Hoffman); officials of the union represented by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough East (Miss Wilkinson); and another. They said what I, from my experience, knew to be true, that wages for that kind of work were so ridiculously low that it would be impossible for people to live on them, even if they got benefit. The only object of a loosely drafted paragraph like this would be if the House had any suspicion that there was grave abuse in industries of this kind—in building, in the painting trade, in dressmaking, and in the fishing industry, as well as in many other seasonal industries. I will not ask the House to believe me when I say that if there are any cases of abuse in this type of industry, they are very few. The people are not of the type to do that, and are not in a position to carry through such abuses. I should like, however, to quote the right hon. Lady herself in defence of my suggestion. When she was speaking on the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, in 1927,
she mentioned the great campaign that was going on. It was she said,
declaring that the people of this country were defrauding the Unemployment Insurance Fund, declaring that they were wasters and wastrels, and workshys, that there was work to he found and they would not take it, and that they were drawing these great sums of money undeservedly. What was the result? We raked the country to get some evidence brought before the Committee"—
that was the Blanesburgh Committee—
to justify that statement, and we could not get it. Even the Charity Organisation Society had to say that they regretted that they could not find the evidence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 10th November, 1927; col. 420, Vol. 210.]
I quote that speech of the right hon. Lady in 1927 because I feel that the only justification for a loosely worded paragraph such as this would be if she herself suspected, and could bring to the House, evidence that we ought to consider that there were a large proportion of workshy people. She has said that that is not true. I believe that the experience of the majority of hon. Members of the House is that it is not true. Therefore, after the way in which the very recent converts to the point of view of the Independent Labour party have denounced the Minister's wording of Clause 1, I hope that we shall get a similar concession on Clause 2. I recognise that the right hon. Lady has had a very difficult task. She has had to try to induce hon. Members behind her to believe that this will not do anything and to persuade hon. Gentlemen opposite that it will do something. We have had to watch that, by accident, it did not do something, just as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) has sat silent in the hope that the Bill would do something towards the purposes which he has in mind. I think that we won and the right hon. Gentleman lost on this first paragraph, and I hope the right hon. Lady will meet us again on paragraph (b) and give us a more, closely worded definition which cannot be used in anything like such a vague way, so that the right hon. Gentleman's purpose may be again defeated and the unemployed in these somewhat unorganised trades shall not run any risk of unfair treatment by the Advisory Committee that will be set up.

Mr. KINLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
I want to call the attention of the House to this Amendment, the discussion on which I understand will cover paragraphs (b) and (c) for the purpose of saving the time of the House. I am particularly interested in the Amendment because while it is true that the Amendments which have been carried to paragraph (a) have revealed the danger of the threats levelled against a very large section of the working class community, this paragraph with which we are now dealing affects a very large number of my own constituents who are representative of a large percentage of the working class population in all the ports of the Kingdom. May I direct attention, first, to the question of the seasonal worker? It is now proposed that while the seasonal worker is still to be compelled, under the old law, to contribute at the full rate on every occasion of employment, there should be brought into existence an entirely new machine—the Advisory Committee—whose function will be to see that those individuals shall not obtain what they have hitherto been said to be entitled to have.
I want to know from the Minister of Labour whether she will now say that, so far as these seasonal workers are concerned, there is any need whatever of a new machine to enable her or anyone else to deprive them of benefit to which they have been entitled. I have fought case after case for seasonal workers who have been deprived of unemployment benefit, not because they had not the requisite number of stamps or had failed to meet any of the qualifications which already existed, but because there were still certain disqualifications in the existing legislation which enabled the Employment Exchange, the court of referees and the umpire to turn them down because they were seasonal workers. I have to admit that so far, during the two years I have been a Member of the House, on no occasion can I recall that I have been successful in my efforts to secure payment of benefit to those seasonal workers in my own constituency who have been deprived of it under the existing Act.
On what ground, therefore, can the Government justify asking the House to
give additional powers to deal with these persons who, under present legislation, are so regularly and effectively deprived of the benefit to which they imagined they were entitled when they were compelled to become insured persons? I am bearing in mind, as far as my own area is concerned—I know that my experience can be borne out by others who represent still larger areas—quite a number of circumstances that will all come together if this Bill should become an Act and come into operation. I can see, in my own constituency, hundreds of houses which will be affected both by paragraphs (b) and (c). For instance, there is the two-day a week man, the docker with a trade union—the trade union which appears to be agreeing to this, and who appears to have been consulted. In the Merseyside area for a period of years now it has worked out, on a yearly analysis, that the average working time of a docker is two days a a week. Under paragraph (c), as I read it, every one of those dockers will be in danger of coming out of his benefit. The docker is normally required for only two days in a week. Another section of the community, it is true, also works two days a week, because they only want to work for two days; they are to be deprived of all hope of getting benefit, or the conditions of their receiving benefite and the amount to be received are to be curtailed and controlled by the regulations which are to be set up. So far, however, as the others are concerned—my dockers and those who go down to the stand twice and three times every day, who do want work and are normally employed for only two days a week because that is all the work available—they, willy-nilly, are going to be brought within the ambit of paragraph (c). Take the docker in those circumstances who can get only two days' work a week, who is brought under this paragraph, and is subjected, because he is only getting two days' work a week, to special regulations in regard to his benefit. His benefit will be reduced. In the same home there is a married woman who is a seasonal worker because when, with her husband habitually employed for only two days a week she discovered that it was utterly impossible for her to maintain the home on his wages, she realised that it was absolutely necessary for her, having a trade at her fingers' ends, to turn out to
work. She had no alternative but to seek what work she could get in seasonal occupation which was offered in a jam factory three or four miles away from her home. There are hundreds of married women, wives of dockers getting only two or less than, two days' work a week, who go out regularly whenever they can get employment at one particular jam factory not very far away from Bootle. They become insured persons engaged in seasonal occupations and, while the husband may be deprived of benefit under paragraph (c), the wife is to be dealt with under paragraph (b) and will also be deprived of benefit.
I suggest to the Minister that the desire for economy may be great and the desire to remove anomalies may be great, but in any hunting after the abolition of anomalies nothing ought to be done that can possible mean the infliction of hardships on the married woman who is a seasonal worker because her husband is not earning enough to keep the home, The responsibility for any Measure that would inflict this two-fold hardship on one home ought never to lie at the door of a Labour Minister. I ask the House to protect itself and its self-respect, and to reject both paragraph (b) and paragraph (c).
May I further suggest that there must be whole classes of workers who will be brought within these paragraphs whose cases have not yet been brought to the notice of the Minister? I will give her more. Coming from a seaport, one naturally has to do not only with dockers, but with the men who go down to the sea in ships—when they can. If the Minister herself cares to make inquiries at our ports, she will discover, such has been the change that has taken place in those ports during the last 10 years, that whole hosts of seamen of every description, who formerly were regular seafarers, are now either short-time workers or seasonal workers. I have men in my area, and hon. Members who represent other ports have similar men in their areas, who have been going to sea for a considerable period of years but who have now been laid off because their ships have been held up. Because of their good record, they have usually been given the chance of further employment. The only chance that they can get now is when the cruises are on, when, during the
cruising season, liners are fitted up to take millionaires and other people for the Mediterranean cruise. That is the only period of the year during which these people can get employment. It is seasonal employment. They are going to be dealt with under this paragraph. I want to know why.
Why also are married women seasonal workers to be penalised? Why are their husbands, many of whom are dockers, getting only two days' work a week because the trade is bad in the port, to be penalised? They habitually do only two days' work a week. Is it in the interests of economy that they are to be deprived of something that they are getting now? Is it suggested that the Insurance Fund was established, not for the purpose of providing unemployment benefit for those who are unemployed, hut as a means of providing unemployment benefit for those who do not require it because they are not unemployed? Is it suggested that, while the rate of contribution is to be unchanged, the more unfortunate and helpless sections are to be penalised? Are they to have set up for them a separate machinery, designed for the sole purpose of seeing that, whatever they have been able to get hitherto, they are to get less of it in the future? That their contributions are to be the same, but they are to take a good deal less? I do not want my Government to make itself responsible for that, and I can assure my Government that it will get no help from me in that process, now or at any other time.
There is another point that might be borne in mind. We have decided this afternoon that the short-time worker is to be taken out of the scope of the Bill. The short-time worker may now breathe freely, but the two-days-a-week man may not. We have saved the position of the man who habitually works three days a week, but we are still going to deal with the man who habitually works two days a week. Suppose that man suggests to his employer that he will do another day's work for nothing, and that, while he is employed and paid for two days a week, he is quite prepared to do a third day each week voluntarily. By doing that day's work each week for nothing, he can contract out under paragraph (a). He ceases to be a two-days-a-week man and becomes a short-time worker and so
can escape. That is a point that the Minister might bear in mind. In other words, while this machinery is being evolved there has been set up under paragraph (a) in its amended form, a loophole through which, if they are only keen and cute enough, the two-days-a-week man and woman can escape, if they are prepared further to lower the standard of themselves and their colleagues by doing three days a week instead of two. I appeal to the Minister to delete both these paragraphs. Failing that, I appeal to the House to protect all these people of whom I have spoken, and to register a protest against the threat that is now levelled against them.

Miss BONDFIELD: It is quite clear from the discussion that has taken place that we have just listened to a veritable travesty of what would be the effect of the operation of the Clause. The reason is very clearly laid down in the report of the Royal Commission, why the particular headings and the particular categories of cases are given. If a claimant falls into one of the categories, he cannot possibly be dealt with at the same time as being in another category. That cannot possibly happen. In connection with the general principle of the seasonal worker and the intermittent worker, the Clause will deal specifically with certain categories of cases which are known. We do not know the extent of them, we only know that we have had typical cases. Seasonal workers are those in trades where the season is definitely limited by date, from a certain period to a certain period, in respect of a class of work which cannot happen at any other time of the year because it is directly connected with the season. It is seasonal work, and that is the only class of seasonal work that we are attempting to deal with in paragraph (b).
There is another class of seasonal worker where there is a busy season alternating with a slack season, which will not come under the Clause at all. The report specifically excludes them. On page 44 it says:
The term 'seasonal workers' is used to cover two different classes of case—(1) where there is a busy season alternating with a slack season during which, nevertheless, some employment in the trade is available, and (2), where the work is of a wholly
seasonal character, beginning and ending on some more or less definite date.….
The first category does not come under the Bill at all, and includes the building trade, clothing trade workers and others. All the arguments addressed to those classes of case fall to the ground. The division is quite clear. The class of intermittent workers is one of those points on which I have to be especially careful, because it is a much more difficult thing to define. Cases are there, and are clearly defined in the sense that one knows that certain categories are affected when nobody thinks they are affected. It is workers of that class who, for their personal reasons, or because, as in the case of printers, it is the custom of the trade, habitually and regularly only work two days a week.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Under the Bill, the class of intermittent workers is confined to those who work for not more than two days a week, but now power is being taken to deal with those who work three days a week as short-time workers. If a person is long enough at intermittent work, he is cut out because he comes under the regulations, but, if the period of work is extended by another day, and he becomes a short-time worker, he is then guaranteed benefit. What is now being done is to provide an inducement to the man working two days a week to work another day for nothing in order to get the benefit of the longer period.

Miss BONDFIELD: The situation is that there is a category of persons who are what we call week-enders, because there is no opportunity for them to do that work on three days a week, nor do they wish to do any other work in another category of trade. These are not imaginary cases, but real cases which I have had to handle myself, and in which there is no ambiguity. They are due to the growing practice in the distributive trades of employing persons on the two busy days, Friday and Saturday, and sometimes only on Friday afternoon and Saturday, and for that work persons are quite definitely selected who do not want to work during any other part of the week. I say that they are not in the employment field for the other four days, and are not entitled to benefit. The position is perfectly clear. That is the class of case with which I mean to deal, and which is intended to be dealt with under
the second of the two paragraphs, and I could not possibly agree to withdraw-either of the two paragraphs.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I wish to put to the Minister the point which was put by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). Of course there is a certain number of people in week-end occupations, but it does not follow that people who are included in these week-end occupations on Friday and Saturday could not, if need be, work on some other day as well.

Miss BONDFIELD: Those people who would work and cannot are not included.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is it not possible for people who work just for a week-end, to make an arrangement with their employers to get themselves transferred from the one category to the other? It would involve their working one extra day a week, and is no more impossible than the arrangement for organized short time in the cotton trade which already exists.

Miss BONDFIELD: If that were so, I should say that it was a collusion between the employer and the worker to get round the Act, and we should have to try again to deal with it in some other way. But I do not propose to assume that that will be the case; I propose to assume that the class of people with whom I am dealing is a class of people who are satisfied with working two days a week at the end of the week, and who, owing to an accident in the drafting of the Act, have been enabled to get benefit. I believe that the majority of them, when they know that it is not intended that they should draw benefit, will cease to claim it.

Mr. KINLEY: In view of the fact that the Minister has on several occasions referred to the report of the Royal Commission, I should like to ask the right hon. Lady if she can point to any word in this Bill from beginning to end which declares that either the Minister or the Advisory Committee, now or in the future, must base their actions upon the findings of the Royal Commission. I suggest that the report of the Royal Commission is not in this Bill, nor can it govern the action of the Committee.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: The assumption which underlies the Minister's contribution to the discussion causes me a good deal of uneasiness. The assumption appears to be that it is quite certain that those who engage in seasonal occupations which would bring them under paragraph (d) of Sub-section (2), and those who engage in what are described as week-end occupations, limit themselves to occupations of that kind as a matter of voluntary choice.

Miss BONDFIELD: That is precisely the point.

Mr. BROWN: What I am concerned about is that the Bill is not limited to that. If it means what it says, it affects persons whose weekly employment is employment for portions of the year only, in occupations which are not of a seasonal nature, and the whole point is that it may not be the desire of the individual at all that his employment should be of a seasonal or week-end character. Let me give an example. I was brought up in a seaside town, namely, Margate, In that town, during the summer, there is abundance of employment, but during the winter months there is practically no employment at all, and I dare say I could find a dozen of my old school-mates now living in Margate who for several years past have only been able to find work during the summer months—that is to say, seasonal work. Those men would clearly come under the terms of paragraph (b) of Subsection (2). But I, and many other Members as well, know that, if they are only doing summer work, it is not because they want to limit themselves to that, but because they cannot get work in the winter months.
With regard to the week-enders, again, why is it assumed that the person who only works on a Saturday and Sunday does so purely as a matter of individual choice? The odds are probably 10 to one that it is a matter of necessity, but, whether it is a matter of necessity or not, both classes are covered by paragraph (c), and, with very great respect to the Minister, I do not think that she makes a good case when she says that it is only proposed to deal with cases where the limitation to seasonal or week-end occupation is voluntary. The plain fact is that you cannot tell by regulation whether it is voluntary or not, and, in
order to cover a few bad cases, the prospect is that a very much wider area of perfectly genuine cases will suffer hardship. I want to put to the Minister this further point which troubles me very much. The Clause, as it was until today, dealt in paragraphs (a) and (c) of Sub-section (2), with two entirely different categories of people. In paragraph (a) there was no provision for short-time workers who had to be engaged more or less permanently on short time and to be in receipt of more than a certain amount of earnings. Paragraph (a), with which paragraph (c) could up to that point be contrasted, dealt with
persons who on any day within the period in respect of which benefit is payable or within any preceding period prescribed by the regulations receive any earnings or similar payments of such a kind, and of such substantial amount, as may be so prescribed.
That paragraph has now gone, and a new paragraph (a) has been inserted, which seems to me entirely to overlap with paragraph (c) as it stands now. I will read the two paragraphs to illustrate what I am saying. The new paragraph (a) covers people who
habitually work for less than a full week, and by the practice of the trade in which they are employed nevertheless receive earnings or similar payments of an amount greater than the normal earnings for a full week of persons following the same occupation in the same district.
Paragraph (c) covers
persons whose normal employment is employment in an occupation in which their services are not normally required for more than two days in the week or who owing to personal circumstances are not normally employed for more than two days in the week.
Therefore, paragraph (a) now deals with people who are more or less regularly

engaged on short time, and so does paragraph (c). But there is a tremendous difference proposed between the treatment now to be given to one set under paragraph (a) and to another set under paragraph (c). In the one case, they had to be receiving an amount which was more than the amount normally earned in that trade for a full week's work, a very substantial safeguard upon which the Government are to be congratulated. But that safeguard does not apply to the people under (c). I suggest that they should delete paragraphs (b) and (c) altogether. Whatever dramatic cases may have been given of part-time workers under paragraph (a) drawing fabulous salaries and getting unemployment benefit on top, no such case has been adduced under paragraphs (b) and (c). The Minister may say that paragraph (a) was necessary in order to save the insurance scheme from the danger presented to it by scandalous and outrageous abuses, but there has been no such evidence as that on paragraphs (b) and (c). I suggest, therefore, that the right hon. Lady should accept the Amendments to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) altogether. Even if she cannot do that I urge her to give the same protection to people under paragraphs (b) and (c) as the Government have decided to give to people under paragraph (a) otherwise there is a glaring anomaly between the two categories of cases, which I do not believe she desires to see. I hope we shall have a further statement from the Government.

Question put "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 14.

Division No. 445.]
AYES.
[8.38 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Birkett, W. Norman
Cripps, Sir Stafford


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Daggar, George


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bowen, J. W.
Dallas, George


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dalton, Hugh


Alpass, J. H.
Broad, Francis Alfred
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)


Ammon, Charles George
Bromley, J.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Angell, Sir Norman
Brothers, M.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Arnott, John
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Dukes, C.


Ayles, Walter
Burgess, F. G.
Duncan, Charles


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Ede, James Chuter


Barnes, Alfred John
Cameron, A. G.
Edmunds, J. E.


Barr, James.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Batey, Joseph
Church, Major A. G.
Egan, W. H.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Cluse, W. S.
Elmley, Viscount


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
England, Colonel A.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Compton, Joseph
Foot, Isaac


Benson, G.
Cowan, D. M.
Freeman, Peter


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Leonard, W.
Romeril, H. G.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rowson, Guy


Gibbins, Joseph
Logan, David Gilbert
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Longbottom, A. W.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Gill, T. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sanders, W. S.


Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William
Sawyer, G. F.


Glassey, A. E.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Scott, James


Gossling, A. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Scurr, John


Gould, F.
McElwee, A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, V. L.
Sherwood, G. H.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
McKinlay, A.
Shield, George William


Gray, Milner
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Shillaker, J. F.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shinwell, E.


Groves, Thomas E.
Manning, E. L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mansfield, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
March, S.
Sitch, Charles H.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Marcus, M.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marley, J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Marshall, Fred
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mathers, George
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Haycock, A. W.
Middleton, G.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hayday, Arthur
Millar, J. D.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mills, J. E.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Milner, Major J.
Sorensen, R.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Montague, Frederick
Stamford, Thomas W.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sullivan, J.


Herriotts, J.
Morley, Ralph
Sutton, J. E.


Hicks, Ernest George
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hoffman, P. C.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tillett, Ben


Hollins, A.
Mort, D. L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hopkin, Daniel
Muff, G.
Tout, W. J.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Townend, A. E.


Isaacs, George
Murnin, Hugh
Viant, S. P.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Naylor, T. E.
Walker, J.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wallace, H. W.


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Watkins, F. C.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Wellock, Wilfred


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Paling, Wilfrid
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Palmer, E. T.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
West, F. R.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Perry, S. F.
Westwood, Joseph


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Lang, Gordon
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Pole, Major D. G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Potts, John S.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Price, M. P.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe).


Lawrence, Susan
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Raynes, W. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lawson, John James
Richards, R.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Leach, W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.


NOES.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Stephen Campbell


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Kirkwood, D.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Brockway, A. Fenner
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Wise. E. F.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Maxton, James



Buchanan, G.
Sandham, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Horrabin, J. F.
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Kinley and Mr. Beckett.

Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 14, to leave out paragraph (c).—[Mr. Sandham.]

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 15.

Division No. 446.]
AYES.
[8.47 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Angell, Sir Norman
Barr, James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Arnott, John
Batey, Joseph


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Attlee, Clement Richard
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Ayles, Walter
Bennett Sir E. N. (Cardiff Central)


Alpass, J. H.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)


Ammon, Charles George
Barnes, Alfred John
Benson, G.


Birkett, W. Norman
Hopkin, Daniel
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bowen, J. W.
Isaacs, George
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pole, Major D. G.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Potts, John S.


Bromley, J.
Jones, Llewellyn, F.
Price, M. P.


Brothers, M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Raynes, W. R.


Burgess, F. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richards, R.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Cameron, A. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Ritson, J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Romeril, H. G.


Church, Major A. G.
Lang, Gordon
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rowson, Guy


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Compton, Joseph
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Cowan, D. M.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Sanders, W. S.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawrence, Susan
Sawyer, G. F.


Daggar, George
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Scott, James


Da[...]las, George
Lawson, John James
Scurr, John


Dalton, Hugh
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Leach, W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Shield, George William


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leonard, W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shillaker, J. F.


Dukes, C.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shinwell, E.


Duncan, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Ede, James Chuter
Longbottom, A. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Edmunds, J. E.
Longden, F.
Sitch, Charles H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Egan, W. H.
Lunn, William
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


England, Colonel A.
McElwee, A.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Foot, Isaac
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Freeman, Peter
McKinlay, A.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sorensen, R.


Gibbins, Joseph
Manning, E. L.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Mansfield, W.
Sullivan, J.


Gill, T. H.
March, S.
Sutton, J. E.


Gillett, George M.
Marcus, M.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Glassey, A. E.
Marley, J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gossling, A. G.
Marshall, Fred
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gould, F.
Mathers, George
Tillett, Ben


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Matters, L. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Middleton, G.
Tout, W. J.


Gray, Milner
Millar, J. D.
Townend, A. E.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mills, J. E.
Viant, S. P.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major J.
Walker, J.


Groves, Thomas E.
Montague, Frederick
Wallace, H. W.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Watkins, F. C.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morley, Ralph
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Wellock, Wilfred


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Welsh, James (Palsley)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
West, F. R.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mort, D. L.
Westwood, Joseph


Haycock, A. W.
Muff, G.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hayday, Arthur
Muggeridge, H. T.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Murnin, Hugh
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Herriotts, J.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hicks, Ernest George
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Paling, Wilfrid
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palmer, E. T.



Hoffman, P. C.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hollins, A.
Perry, S. F.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Thurtle.


NOES.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Kirkwood, D.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Brockway, A. Fenner
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Wise, E. F.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Maxton, James



Buchanan, G.
Sandham, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Horrabin, J. F.
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley.


Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): The next Amendment that I call stands in the name of the
hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan)—in page 2, line 23, at the end to insert the words:
Provided that this class shall not include married women whose husbands are incapacitated from work or are unemployed and not in receipt of benefit, nor widows.

Miss RATHBONE: On a point of Order. Will you kindly tell me whether on this Amendment we shall be allowed to discuss the general question of the special regulations affecting married women? May I point out that the classes affected by paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) have been very fully discussed. They were also discussed on the Committee stage. The class of married women affected by paragraph (d) was discussed in Committee at 4.30 a.m., very much less fully than the other three classes. I am anxious to know whether we shall have an opportunity—since you have called this Amendment and not the Amendment to leave out paragraph (d)—of dealing with the class of married women affected by paragraph (d), or whether that is the only class dealt with in connection with these anomalies which is to be excluded from further discussion on the Report stage?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The only questions that we can discuss on the Report stage are the questions arising directly out of the Amendments called. I have called this Amendment, and we can only discuss the substance of the Amendment.

Miss LEE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that this class shall not include married women whose husbands are incapacitated from work or are unemployed and not in receipt of benefit, nor widows.
I consider this the second best course. I should very much have preferred that the Committee had decided to delete Sub-section (2), because I believe that it will defeat its own objective. It will not exclude the women who, presumably, do not want to continue in work and it will endanger the benefit of many married women who have every intention of working, but who are not able to maintain their work. I will give one example as a preliminary explanation why we consider the House ought to accept this Amendment. Suppose that a married woman has every intention of continuing in work, but is engaged in a trade, factory or shop where automatically on marriage she is dismissed.
It might be that she could search for months—it might well be that in the West of Scotland she could search for a year or for several years—without being able to find work. Under the wording of the original Clause these women would have no contributions subsequent to marriage and their benefit would be in great danger if not altogether put off. The Secretary of State for War in an earlier speech to-day said that no one expected that "not genuinely seeking work" would be interpreted in the harsh way that it has been interpreted. His comments on the way that phrase was used is the best recommendation to the House that in this new Bill we should make it impossible that there should be a similar distortion of the intentions of the committee.
9.0 p.m.
I do not feel that the consultative committee to be set up is any guarantee, especially under a possible Conservative Minister of Labour, that we should have the wording of the Bill stretched in such a way as to show sympathy with working-class claimants. There is a very real and Very substantial danger that the wording of the Bill will stand for the maximum clemency that will be shown and that the working of the consultative committee in making recommendations will tend to tighten up the legislation and to endanger the claims of many women whose benefit it is not intended to endanger. Therefore, in bringing forward the Amendment we are asking the committee specifically to exclude certain women from the danger zone of doubt. Doubt and insecurity can cause as much trouble in working-class homes as definite injury. We believe the House could easily accept the Amendment. In so doing we should be excluding women who obviously ought to be judged on the same basis as single women and ought to be required to fulfil no special obligations, or to make any special contribution by virtue of being married. Women whose husbands are incapacitated from work are specifically excluded by the terms of our Amendment. As I understand it the belief of the House is that there is a temptation for a married woman whose husband is earning a regular wage to apply for benefit and to draw it, if she possibly can, without having any
serious intention of working, and that the additional security given to her by virtue of her husband's income requires that we should enforce special regulations in order to see that the fund is in no way abused. In that ease, it means that in the case of a married woman whose husband is incapacitated from work, marriage is not an added security or an added advantage but, economically, marriage is an added responsibility and an additional proof that the woman must find work in order to keep the home going.
We ask that in a case where the husband is unable to bring any income into the household the married woman claimant to benefit, when she is having her claim judged, should have to satisfy the same conditions as a single woman and that she should be excluded from any additional regulations imposed on married women. The next class that we are seeking to exclude is that of married women whose husbands are unemployed. These women represent a very large and growing class of women who are not, like the women of Lancashire or Dundee, habitually engaged in work on marriage. These women in normal circumstances would be inside the home, but in industrial areas like Lanarkshire they find that where there is no work for the husband they in turn must go out and seek work. In those cases where the husband is unemployed and unable to find work and not in receipt of benefit, we think it only fair that there should be no additional handicap put on the woman where she has been in work, has become unemployed and is claiming benefit.
The third class is that of widows. I think we can take it for granted that widows will be free from any special regulations or examinations imposed on married women, but the Clause does not mention them, and some of ray hon. Friends are very anxious about this class of women. They have been included in the Amendment more for the purposes of getting an explanation, because I do not see how they can be directly involved. The other two classes, those whose husbands are incapacitated from work and those whose husbands are unemployed and not in the receipt of benefit, are two classes on whom this House has no right to impose
additional restrictions or regulations. There are many other classes which might have been incorporated in an Amendment of this kind. We should have preferred if the Clause had been deleted altogether, but, since the House has not seen fit to do so, we are now seeking to safeguard this House from imposing regulations which, in spite of its best intentions and according to the strict wording of the Bill, might be interpreted in such a way as to cause unnecessary distress. I ask the House to accept this very modest and reasonable Amendment. It is not asking the House to do anything it does not want to do. It simply seeks to insert in black and white what I feel must be the desire of every Member.

Mr. SANDHAM: I beg to second the Amendment.
I regard the form of the Bill as an attack upon married women. There ought not to be this differentiation. Of course, I am expressing my own view in regard to the Bill itself. I am entirely opposed to it, and, consequently, have the profoundest prejudice against this particular Clause which deals with married women. Does the House realise to what extent this Bill differentiates between a married woman of the working class and a married woman who may emanate from the supposed intellectuals of society, where they are encouraged to run businesses—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must guard the House against entering into a discussion of a general nature. This is an Amendment to exclude a certain section or class from the provisions of the Clause, and we must keep to the proposals of the Amendment.

Mr. SANDHAM: I am sorry; it was not my intention to pursue it. I was only illustrating what to my mind ought to be the policy of our party. At the same time we have to realise that these married women who are covered by this Amendment have been and are at the present time economic units, productive units, and we ought not to allow ourselves to cast them aside, as it were, simply because for the moment there is a demand for economy. I want to point out to the House, and to the supporters of this party in particular, that these women may remember legislation like
this at the next election, and they will have a perfect right to remember it and to exercise their protest and take what action they may think fit. We have no right to suggest to these women that they should live upon their husbands or should be dependent in any sense upon their husbands. We ought to encourage them to feel that they have a right to independence because of the fact that they are married women, and because they have hitherto been contributors to productive work in the various industries of the country. It is for these and many other reasons that I desire to associate myself with the Amendment, which I hope will receive considerable support in the House.

Mr. LAWSON: The Amendment which has been so ably moved by the hon. Lady for North Lanark (Miss Lee) is one which on the face of it would invite our sympathy, and I can assure the House that if the Amendment carried on the face of it the real position there would not be the slightest hesitation on the part of the Government in accepting it. But what is the position? In respect of these classes of women, the question is whether or not they remain in the insurable field. If they remain in the insurable field, then, of course, they do not need this particular and distinctive consideration, but if they leave the insurable field, then, much as we may individually sympathise with the proposal, they are in the same position as other women who are not at the present time in the insurable field, and who perhaps have never received unemployment benefit. We all know numbers of uninsured women whose husbands are incapacitated and the difficult times they have to face, and also those whose husbands are unemployed and not in receipt of benefit. We sympathise with them, but they do not receive unemployment benefit, and never have received it. The complaint has always been that in their case there is a differentiation between them and other married women who have been in, but have left, the insurable field, and much as we may sympathise with this class of women covered by the proposed Amendment the Government cannot accept the proposal, because if they are outside the insurable field then there Is no case for consideration more than there
is in the case of other women who do not receive unemployment benefit. Therefore, the Government cannot make this discrimination, and we must reject the Amendment.

Miss LEE: In moving this Amendment, I did not ask for any special consideration for this class of married women in addition to that given to single women. They would come under the ordinary regulations with any other women claiming benefit, but I do ask the Minister to consider this. He trusts the Advisory Committee under a Tory Ministry; I do not. I have only the wording in the Bill upon which to go, and if such, a committee was operating in these circumstances it would be quite within the letter of the law in disqualifying women in these categories, although they could satisfy the regulations.

Miss RATHBONE: I say respectfully that I think the reply we have received from the Parliamentary Secretary shows a real confusion of thought. What is the argument put forward? That the Ministry cannot accept this Amendment because they cannot discriminate in favour of any class of women who are not in the field of insurance. But the Amendment does not ask that they should do so. No one, however great her need and however great our sympathies for her, is entitled to benefit who is not in the insurable field. The whole point with respect to the married women of the Subsection to which this Amendment proposes a proviso, is that where there is something attaching to the condition of the married woman that makes it necessary to apply special regulations to her, they should be applied. What is that something? Is it not obvious that the theory on which paragraph (d) rests is that because married women normally are dependent on their husbands and have therefore no source of subsistence, the danger is greater in the case of married women than in the case of single women or married men or single men, that the married woman will not be in earnest in the search for work and will only pretend to search for work when she is really relying for subsistence on her husband.
The class of women whom this Amendment singles out is the class to whom that condition of normal dependency definitely does not apply. The condition
of a woman whose husband is incapacitated or unemployed and not in receipt of benefit, or who is a widow, requires her to be placed in a separate category. The excuse in the case of the married woman with a husband working is that it is exceptional for her to be seeking work, and that therefore the danger of ungenuine claims has to be specially guarded against; but that risk does not apply to the women in the categories named in the Amendment, any more than it applies to a single man or a single woman. On the contrary, a woman who has a husband dependent on her has more reason for seeking work than the ordinary single woman who may quite well be dependent upon a father who is in work.
I suggest, therefore, that the Government might reconsider this Amendment, and consider whether they should not make some concession on this question of the married women. I assure them that there is a great feeling of alarm and resentment on behalf of the organised women all over the country—alarm which is to a certain extent disguised from this House by the fact that some of the natural spokesmen of these organised women are in a position where they feel that they cannot get up and speak frankly in opposition to their own Government. The case would have been very differently put in this House if we had had a Government of a different political complexion in power. Here is an opportunity for the Ministry to show that it is not making a scapegoat, as many of us seriously think is the case, of the married woman as a person against whom there is a considerable amount of popular prejudice, and who is therefore not in a good position to fight for herself. The Government would alleviate our fears if they would say that there is a class of women who can be taken out of paragraph (d) and that they are prepared to make that concession.

Miss WILKINSON: I want to add to what the last speaker has said. As a trade union official representing many thousands of organised women workers—my union has at least 40 per cent. of women in its ranks—I appeal to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary at least to consider this concession
before the Third Reading. The position really is very serious. I do not think that the Government realise what a very strong feeling there is in the country about this Clause. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it was difficult to take one section of married women out, and that if they were not in the insurance field it would not apply. I would remind him of the very wise words of the Secretary for War earlier to-day. In speaking of the "not genuinely seeking work" Clause, the right hon. Gentleman said that no one in their senses ever imagined that those words would be so twisted as in fact they were twisted. I am very much afraid that if this Advisory Committee gets to work, it will get to work with a certain selected number of bogies, and one of those bogies will be the married woman, and that it will become as easy to twist the Bill against married women as such as it was under the old Act to twist the "not genuinely seeking work" Clause.
I suggest that the Ministry would cut away a lot of the ground of feeling if they accepted the Amendment, against which no one can honestly make a case. The Parliamentary Secretary replied that if these women were in the insurance field, they would come under the normal operation of the Act. Then why mention married women in this Bill at all? The Ministry cannot have it both ways. Either they regard a married woman as an ordinary workman subject to the ordinary laws of insurance, or, if she is not in the insurance field, she is as much out of it and as much unlikely to get the benefit as any man or any single woman. I would have no objection whatever if she were treated in that way, to stand her corner like anyone else, even though she has disabilities that a single woman has not. But if you are going to put these disabilities on her as a married woman by paragraph (d), the Minister cannot turn round and say that the Government will not accept the Amendment because these women would have to be considered in the ordinary insurance field.
Logic does not seem to play any part in this Bill at all. I appreciate the view of the Government that, as practical politicians, what they have to do is to dodge a worked-up newspaper campaign in such a way as to keep as many
people as possible under the Act. I see that point of view. But I also say that as practical politicians they had better carry on this patchwork of complications and at least see that they have a very strong sentimental case, to put it no higher, in giving to the married woman, who is in a much worse position than the single woman, this concession, and in saying that where the married woman has dependents upon her, these super-difficult regulations shall not apply. Let us put a screen round the married woman with dependents and take her away from this committee altogether. That is what we want to do. The result would be not that she would have any special privileges but that she would be protected from special disabilities.
I suggest to the Secretary of State for War, who has a very large number of women workers in his constituency, that if the committee gets to work it can play havoc in the textile trade, not only among the married women of Lancashire, but also of Yorkshire. Suppose that the women in these industries become most strongly organised in trade unions, it is not at all unlikely that they will make a very strong political retaliation if they are discriminated against in this way, and they will be entitled to do so. This will not cost the fund a very great deal, but it will at least achieve something in default of anything better. The best thing would be to drop paragraph (d) altogether, for there is no case for leaving it in or for taking the married woman away and separating her from the ordinary classes. I submit that the proviso moved by the hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) does at least take the women who need it most away from possible vindictiveness on the pact of the committee, of which we are all rather afraid, and protect her while she is earning a living for her incapacitated husband.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I want to make a suggestion to the Minister of War which I hope he will accept. We do not want to divide the House on this Amendment unnecessarily. Our object is to try to get rid of the obvious injustice of treating women whose husbands are incapacitated from work or unemployed and not in receipt of benefit in exactly the same position as the married women whose husbands are earning a livelihood. The
Parliamentary Secretary stated that he had every sympathy with the object of the Amendment and that if the words meant what they seem to mean upon their face the Government would be prepared to accept the Amendment. This Bill has now gone too far in this House for an Amendment drafted by the Government to meet the demand which we are putting forward being incorporated in it. I therefore ask the Government whether they will be prepared, when this Bill reaches another place, to introduce another Amendment which will, in their view, meet the point, of the claim we are advocating. If the Government could give a definite assurance of that nature, I think it would be unnecessary to press the Amendment to a division. The case for the Amendment is so obvious that I think it will be extraordinarily difficult for the Government or anyone else to justify its rejection.
I listened very carefully to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I confess he convinced me of the strength of the Amendment. Single women are outside the scope of the Clause. It applies to married women. All we are asking is that where married women have husbands who are incapacitated from work and cannot maintain them or who have husbands who are actually out of a job and are not receiving benefit, and where the married women are not merely in the position of single women but are so far as bread winning is concerned, fulfilling the function of the married men, they shall not be excluded from benefit under the Clause. I suggest to the Secretary of State for War and to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs that there is no possible ground upon which this Amendment can be resisted. We hope they will at least meet us to the extent of saying that, if we are prepared to withdraw these particular words, they will introduce an Amendment in another place which will meet the effect of the words which we desire to insert.

Mr. SCOTT: I should like to support the view expressed by the hon. Member who has just spoken. In doing so, I am speaking solely for myself, but I have received so many representations on behalf of married women who feel that they are affected by paragraph (d) of this Sub-section that I venture to rein-
force the appeal made from various quarters of the House that the Government should reconsider the position which they have taken up. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who will reply that it would be a gracious act on the part of the Government to deal sympathetically with the position of the married woman. Married women protest that in this Bill there is an attack being made by the Labour Government upon their economic position such as has not been made against them for many a day. I presume that is not an aspersion which the Government would wish to have cast upon them. I do not suppose the Government mean to depress the economic position of the married woman. I assume that in the Government's favour.
I think it is generally admitted that the Government should deprive of benefit certain women who are not entitled to it and make such economies as they can, but the position of the married women is this, that they are for the first time being selected as a separate class because they are married. They point out with some justification that they were introduced into the insurance scheme, not as married women, but as workers. I suggest to the Minister of Labour, with great deference, that it is possible to find a form of words before this Bill leaves this House which will accomplish the object which all parties have in view and which yet will not cast this aspersion on married women.

Miss BONDFIELD: I understand that in my absence the Clause has been very fully debated and very strong expressions of opinion have been made that this would be an additional safeguard for this small section of married women. I believe this section would be very small and would not be really affected by the Bill at all, but, if the House wishes to have the additional assurance which the acceptance of the Amendment will give, I am prepared to accept it.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 23, at the end, insert the words:
(3) The regulations made under this Section in relation to persons of the class specified in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) of this Section shall not operate so as to
reduce the amount of benefit otherwise payable to any person in respect of any week by more than the amount by which the aggregate of the earnings or similar payments received by him in that week and of the benefit aforesaid exceeds the normal earnings for a full week of persons following the same occupation in the same district."—[Miss Bondfield.]

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 2, line 29, leave out from the beginning, to the word "benefit," in line 33.—[Mr. Wise.]

In line 33, leave out the word "may," and insert instead thereof the word "shall."—[Mr. Beckett.]

In line 35, leave out the word "that," and insert instead thereof the word "any."—[Mr. Wise.]

In line 36, leave out from the word "regulations," to the word "be," in line 37.—[Mr. Stephen.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment which I call is that in the name of the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise), in page 2, line 29.

Mr. WISE: On a point of Order. May I ask Mr. Speaker if you have decided not to call any of the Amendments which stand on the Paper before this Amendment, dealing with ex-service men and other classes of persons?

Mr. SPEAKER: The last Amendment dealt with was that in the name of the Minister of Labour to line 23 and I am now calling upon the hon. Member to move the next Amendment on the Paper to line 29, which is the first of four Amendments dealing with Sub-section (4).

Mr. WISE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out from the beginning to the word "benefit," in line 33.
The purpose of this Amendment is to correct what I think is a drafting error in connection with Sub-section (4). This Sub-section is obviously necessary to tide over the period after these regulations come into force and before cases can be adjudicated upon under the regulations. It seems to us that the Sub-section is much too tightly drawn to be fair and equitable in its operation. As it stands, if a man is entitled to benefit on the day before the making of the regulations, which would cut him out of benefit, he is entitled to receive benefit during the three months while his case is being ex-
amined but if, for any reason, he has 27 or 28 stamps on his card and during the two weeks, or the week immediately after the making of the regulations, he gets the extra stamps, then, as the Clause now stands, he would not get the benefit of them. That seems unreasonable and we therefore propose to re-word the Subsection by incorporating this Amendment and the succeeding Amendments so that it would read as follows:
Benefit shall, during such periods as may be necessary for the examination of the qualifications of any person for the receipt of benefit under the said regulations, but not in any case after the expiration of six months from the said date, be paid to him as if the regulations had not been made.
I have explained the purpose of the first Amendment which is to deal with the unnecessary line of demarcation drawn between the man who happens to be entitled to benefit at the date the regulations are made and the man who because he gets work or is in work then, qualifies for benefit perhaps two or three months before his case can be adjudicated. The second Amendment turns "may" into "shall" in line 33. If the man is entitled to benefit there is no reason why the benefit should be made permissive. If he is qualified under the law as it stands and has not been disqualified under the regulations, it seems to us that, in equity, he ought to be entitled to benefit and that there is no reason for leaving it open. The next Amendment is merely a drafting Amendment. I thought there was a further Amendment making the period six months instead of three months but it seems to have been dropped. However this is a simple proposal and is designed to make the Sub-section fair and equitable in its working. [Laughter.] The hon. Member who laughs evidently does not completely understand it, but I think she would be very indignant about it if she were one of the people "caught out" under this provision as it stands.
It may be that this Sub-section is only common form and I suspect that the fact that it has appeared in previous Acts, is the reason why it appears in this Bill, but in the Acts of 1922 and 1924 in which a similar form of words appears, the intention was not to cut down benefits but to improve benefits and there was less case therefore for objecting to the rigorous application of this provision.
The effect of these words in the previous Acts was indeed, to leave things as they were. The effect of the words in this Bill would be to put insured persons into an unnecessarily unfortunate position. I am sure that it is not the desire of the right hon. Lady to deal harshly with people on the borderline and these Amendments merely tone down the application of the new regulations until the case of the individual concerned has been adjudicated upon, whereas, as the Subsection stands, a man's benefit would be reduced or refused while his case was, still sub judice.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Miss BONDFIELD: I cannot accept the Amendment which is obviously moved under a misapprehension as to the meaning of the Clause. This is an administrative Clause and it is not intended to-spread a particular claim over three months but to give the Department time to make the necessary review of outstanding claims within three months. It would be most undesirable from the Ministry's point of view to have a spread-over applied to the examination of these claims, instead of an examination of the categories as it were of claims, and the estimate of the time required is based upon experience. We find that it takes three months to examine the register and that is a period which has worked satisfactorily in connection with the putting into operation of changes in the Acts on previous occasions. We believe that it will be satisfactory for this purpose, and, for these reasons, and because this proposal would be utterly unsatisfactory in the form suggested by the Amendment, I ask the House to reject it.

Mr. WISE: The right hon. Lady has evidently spoken from a brief prepared in regard to an Amendment which was on the Paper, but which I have not moved. I have not moved any Amendment to increase the period from three months to six months.

Miss BONDFIELD: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am replying to the group of Amendments which this discussion covers, and I have said nothing about six months. I am referring to the three months which
it is suggested should be extended to the new claims, as well as the first examination and it is that to which I object.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 2.—(Constitution of Advisory Committee.)

Miss RATHBONE: I beg to move in page 3, line 12, to leave out the words "one shall be a woman" and to insert instead thereof the words "two shall be women."
I think that the discussions during the proceedings on this Bill upon the question of married women show the great need that the case for the married women should be adequately put in the Advisory Committee and I think that in a committee of nine persons a guarantee of one member is quite insufficient. All who have listened to these discussions, must have realised the danger that married women just because they are so much less organised and because their case is so much less advocated by the great trade unions than the cases that of many other persons covered by these Acts, are more likely to be harshly dealt with. I wonder whether the House realises the great potentialities there are in the treatment of women by the committee under the special provisions of this Bill which refer to them. When one considers that it is left entirely open to the Minister, aided by the Advisory Committee, to prescribe the period of contributions which a married woman shall have to pay subsequent to marriage in order to entitle her to ordinary benefit, to say nothing of transitional benefit, one can see that the Clause might be operated by a committee which might be harshly inclined towards women so as to deprive married women of all their pre-marriage contributions.
I pressed the Minister on the Committee stage to tell us whether the period of post-marriage contributions which a married woman might require to put in was to be a period once for all, or whether it might be a recurrent period. She did not give me an answer, but I understand from questions which I put to her privately that it might be interpreted in either way. I suggest that it might likely be interpreted in this way. Suppose it is re-
quired that a married woman shall have to pay 30 contributions in two years subsequent to marriage, or that she is required to pay 30 contributions in any period subsequent to marriage, or pay eight, 16 or 32 contributions in the two years preceding an application far benefit, provided they were years subsequent to marriage—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the hon. Lady is on the wrong Amendment. The Amendment I called is in page 3, line 12, to leave out the words, "one shall be a woman," and to insert instead thereof the words, "two shall be women."

Miss RATHBONE: That is the Amendment that I am moving, and I was merely giving an illustration to show the great power which is put in the hands of the Advisory Committee to differentiate against married women, and to show how they might by a simple adjustment of the post-marriage period of contributions really deprive a married woman of all her contractual rights. I want to remind the House that if we have an Advisory Committee which is hostile and biased against women, or even if we have an Advisory Committee which has no such conscious bias, but is little in touch and little in sympathy with married women, these regulations may be made a very potent instrument for differentiating against married women and treating them in such a way as to discredit the work of married women.
Married women, whose interests are so vitally affected by this Bill, are really entitled to a guaranteed representation of more than one woman. I am not proposing to increase the number of the committee and therefore it will mean that one of the other representatives, either that of the Treasury or one of the Trades Union Congress representatives, will have to be a woman. It would be desirable if the Trades Union Congress, which has by no means shown itself always the faithful custodian of the interests of women, especially the married women, should be asked to make one of their representatives a woman. If the Minister appointed another woman, we should have a guaranteed representation of two women. When the Minister appoints a woman representative, I beg her not to appoint a
"nice" woman—a tame lapdog who will feed out of the hands of the Minister or the Advisory Committee of the type which we are so often apt to see when one woman representative is appointed on a great committee. The right hon. Lady knows as well as I do that women did not gain their votes and their admission into the professions or the universities or any of the other privileges that they have won by being "nice" women. They gained them by following most assiduously the scriptural precedent of the importunate widow.

Miss WILKINSON: I beg to Second the Motion.
I realise the courage of the hon. Lady in referring to the mysterious lady who in some way gets on these committees and is supposed to represent all women by her own bright self. No one ever suggests that one man shall represent all men. We realise that there are tremendous divergencies of interest. For example, it would be impossible to imagine that the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), or the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), or the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. P. Snowden), merely because they are men, represent the same point of view. In asking for two women on this committee, we realise that we could leave the appointment of one very confidently in the hands of the present Minister, who realises the position, but we have to look to the future, and therefore we feel it necessary that it shall not be left to one woman to attempt to do the impossible and represent all women, but that the different points of view of women should be represented.
There is an obvious distinction between women who represent the employing interests and women who represent trade union interests. The employing man and the trade union man are provided for on this committee with separate representation. It is only this mythical lady who represents everybody who is provided for in the case of women. There is a more serious difference in the ranks of women. There is the quite logical point of view of the unmarried trade unionist who does not see why married women should want to work at all. There are a large number of unmarried trade union women, especially in the Civil Service and Post
Office, who are strongly of the opinion that women should resign on marriage. If you appoint, as the Trades Union Congress might logically do, an official of a trade union which strongly takes that point of view, that woman will naturally and rightly put the point of view of the single women, but she could not be said to represent the large number of married women who have to go out to work. Therefore we suggest that these two women should be appointed.
The Amendment would strengthen the hands of the Minister. There is no doubt that she is anxious to appoint one woman on the Advisory Committee among those members the appointment of whom is in her hands. The appointment of the Trades Union Congress and the employers' representatives are not in her hands. Obviously, she has to take them for a panel. I therefore suggest that it would strengthen her hands if she accepted the Amendment, for then, according to the type of woman she appointed, she could make representation to other bodies that at least one of the members they appointed should be a woman of the other type. We are very modest in asking for only two women, seeing that married women are so largely concerned in this matter. I do not see why we should not have at least four out of the nine, but as we are so modest in asking for only two, I urge the Minister, as she has gone so far in meeting us on the previous Amendment, to accept this Amendment, which I am sure is in accord with her own real wishes.

Miss BONDFIELD: I am bound to say that the two speeches to which we have just listened have made me doubt the wisdom of my first concession. The first speech was alien in spirit to the whole idea of the Labour movement. The first intention was that we should have this Committee equally balanced, quite irrespective of sex considerations, consisting of representatives of employed contributors, employer contributors and State contributors—that is, the taxpayers generally; but owing to the special representations made that it was possible that neither of those representatives would be a woman I yielded to a desire which was expressed and put an extra member on the Committee. If the sentiment of the Committee is going to be as described by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone)
one woman, or even two women, will be ruthlessly outvoted by these brutal men who, it appears, will have no consideration for women at all; and in that case what are the insured women going to do? I beg both those hon. Ladies to remember that if there is one voceriferous section of the movement when they come up against something which they regard as not right it is the women of the movement, and I have not the faintest shadow of doubt that if we put out any regulations which are liable to create an injustice to women as women that we shall hear of it in loud, large tones. The position has been to some extent overstrained by those who—though I do not wish to say anything offensive—have this obsession about women.
What are the Committee going to do? If there is a danger of a trade in which large numbers of women are employed being caught by any new regulations, the first duty of the Advisory Committee will be to call into consultation representatives of that particular trade, and I should expect the Committee to inquire of the women themselves as to whether the regulations were suitable for their case or not. Large areas of women's labour are represented by men; the women themselves have elected them. I cannot dictate to the textile women and say, "You must send me a woman," if the textile unions decide they are going to send men. I really will not agree that that is the best way to assist the expression of women's views. But I have very readily given the concession of adding one woman, and I hope there will be more than one woman among those who are nominated as members, and with that I must ask the House to be content. Under the circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I am very glad the Minister has stood firm on this matter. As one who represents a much larger number of women than men I cannot see why we should be perpetually insulting the women of the country by providing specially for the inclusion of "one woman" on the different committees which are set up. Directly we provide that there must be one woman on a committee one tends to become the maximum. We handicap women by the absurd action of laying it down that a committee or other
body must include one woman, or two. The one woman—or two—is appointed, and then the rest of the committee is automatically filled up with men. I really regret that the hon. Ladies who have moved and seconded this Amendment seem to share the idea of an inferiority complex directly they come to deal with their own sex. There is no reason to suppose that women are an inferior sex in every way. In some ways women are inferior and in some ways we are; but is there anyone who has listened to our Debates who would dispute that the hon. Lady on the benches opposite who has taken such a prominent part in these Debates would not be most excellently qualified to serve on one of these committees as a Trades Union Congress representative, if she were qualified technically? As for the Minister herself, anyone who saw her endurance the other night would realise that she would be eminently qualified to serve on such a committee, and I am perfectly certain that where the Trades Union Congress or any other body think women ought to be on a committee they will keep these bygone notions of a bygone age out of their minds.
One could find examples, also, of efficient, capable and able women from the employers' point of view. Would not a lady like Lady Rhondda be an excellent representative? I see one Welsh Member nodding assent. He realises her capacity, which is a tribute to the whole of her people. There was one expression used by the hon. Member representing the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) which I could not quite make out. She said that she did not want a "nice" woman on the committee. I do not feel that I am qualified to say what a nice woman is, though I realise that all in my constituency are nice women. But why put forward the idea that because a woman has a good manner, because she is agreeable, because she adds to her capacity by being able to get round us poor unfortunate men, therefore we ought to exclude her? After all, niceness, if it means anything, means a capacity to get round people in a reasonable way, and I should have thought one of the first things needed in a woman was that she should have charm, capacity, and ability to get her own way. People do not always get their own way by scolding, but by the use of very different tactics
I am glad that the Minister has refused to accept this really absurd Amendment, and I hope that it may yet be possible to cut out the absurd words providing that one member must be a woman. I dislike those directions, because I think they are derogatory to the whole of the sex.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 5.—(Interpretation, application and short title.)

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
The expression 'earnings or similar payments' shall not include workmen's compensation or pensions under the Widows,' Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, 1925 to 1931, or service pensions in respect of Great War disabilities.
I am hopeful that the Minister of Labour may see her way to accept this Amendment. I believe that it is the purpose of the Minister that these pensions or similar payments shall not include workmen's compensation or pensions. Hon. Members have had experience of legislation where old age pensions, dependants and widows' pensions, and pensions in connection with the War have been taken into account, and people who appear to be getting their circumstances improved always seem to have afterwards a deduction made in some form or another. From the experience of hon. Members of the Labour party, I think we on this side will insist that there shall be no dubiety in this connection.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would add to the appeal which the hon. Member has just made. It is a tragedy to find that men who were maimed and disabled in the Great War, men who were asked by hon. Members on every side of the House to risk their all, and who now after all those years are suffering as a result of their sacrifice, are to be further penalised because they have a pension. Then there are men in industry who have met with accidents and are drawing compensation, and who are in the same category. Surely it would be a nice, gracious action on the part of the Minister to accept this Amendment, because it is all we propose to ask of her to-night. We do not propose to harass her any more
on this occasion—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members seem to enjoy the idea; but I can assure the hon. Lady it is no pleasure on our part to harass her. We did it only because we were impelled to do so. We make this final human appeal on behalf of those who are not able to defend themselves. We find that people who have been thrifty, who have made life-long sacrifices so that they may have what we call in Scotland a nest-egg and have some small savings, are to be penalised.

Mr. LAWSON: I can assure the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) that the Government are not turning a deaf ear to his appeal. The House will remember that on the Committee stage, I gave an assurance that it was not the intention to include workmen's compensation and pensions as "earnings or similar payments." I am glad to say that I am now in a position to inform the House that these words are not necessary legally, that the legal position is that neither workmen's compensation nor widows' and orphans' pensions nor service pensions in respect to Great War disabilities can be counted as "earnings or similar payments." I think I ought to point out that, if these words were put in, it would lay open to grave doubt whether certain other classes of payments should be counted as "earnings or similar payments."

Mr. BUCHANAN: On the question of legal interpretation, what we want to know is whether that legal advice is sound.

Mr. MILLS: Was that not the position before this Amendment was moved?

Mr. LAWSON: Yes, that is so.

Mr. STEPHEN: I know it is the case that applicants coming before the courts of referees are asked if they are in receipt of disability pensions and I know that that disability pension has been a material factor, and also that the umpire has ruled that the fact that the person had a pension is one of the points to be taken into account in determining whether the person is normally in insurable employment or not.

Mr. LAWSON: That is a different point altogether. I repeat, that if these words were included, it would make the position
dangerous for the very people who are most concerned. I ask the House to accept the legal position, and to reject the Amendment.

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 4, line 33, leave out the words "this Act," and insert instead thereof the words "those Acts."—[Miss Bondfield.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir CHARLES TREVELYAN: I did not rote on the Second Reading of this Bill, but I have not the slightest hesitation in voting against the Third Reading. The argument that this is really intended as a Bill against abuses and anomalies has vanished. It has not that genesis at all. If it had, the Government would have shown willingness to accept Amendments designed to help the unemployed who were excluded by anomalies. Not a bit of it. An excellent case was made out for various classes of unemployed men who were excluded. Everyone agreed that the cases were good. There was no uncertainty on the merits of the matter by the Government, but the Government would not look at it. They simply put up a wretched argument that the procedure to deal with the cases would be too complicated. The reason for the whole procedure that they have introduced by this Measure is because they say that the cases with which it has to deal are so complicated. The question of justice was quite outside.
It is purely an economy Bill and nothing else. The anomalies are only anomalies if their abolition will save money. At this time of the evening I only want to say the one simple thing that this is an economy Bill. I am one of those who are definitely hostile to all efforts that will reduce the social services as a remedy for our economic ills. It is the wrong road. The last thing that you ought to do instead of the first, if economy is to be your watchword, is to touch the pittance which any class of workers get from pensions, wages, benefit or anything else. [An HON. MEMBER: "If they are entitled to it."] The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, a few weeks ago, made his announcement that there had to be a period of economy now. That was one of the reasons why I left the Government. This is part of the economy campaign—[Interruption]. I quite agree; it is a very little thing. When the economy campaign was started, there was a growl of hostility, and the consequence is that the Government have only brought forward this little mean bit in order to save their relations with the Liberal party.
I am glad of the opposition that has been put up to this Bill. I am not glad of it because I like differing from my friends on this side. I have been a long time in Parliament, and there is nothing that is more intensely disagreeable to me than voting against those with whom I agree on 95 things out of 100; but I am glad of this opposition simply for the reason that I think it may possibly prevent the Government from going on to larger disaster. I am afraid there are signs that they may be going further. The only new thing in the speech the other day of the President of the Board of Education was that we have to reckon with an era of stringency and economy. I care so much for the Labour party not going into the pit of an impossible policy of economy that I am very glad we have made ourselves Parliamentarily disagreeable, and, because of my hope that this will be the last thing that we shall have to do in this direction, I intend to vote against the Third Reading to-night.

Mr. EDE: I am sure that a great many Members on these benches will have heard with much surprise the speech to which we have just listened, coming from the source from whence it has come. When we think of the way in which some of us walked behind the right hon. Gentleman in the early days of this Session, supporting him when he made concessions to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite which sterilised the Measure for which we were fighting, it ill becomes him to-night to jeer at the right hon. Lady whose magnificent courage in fighting this Bill during the Committee stage and the Report stage to-day is the admiration of the great majority of the Members on these benches.
There was a doctrine in the old days, which this House has constructed a
good many figments to preserve, that the King could do no wrong. There are some people who believe that the working classes can do no wrong. Kings believe that they can do no wrong, but the working classes never have believed that they could do no wrong. There are, in every working-class constituency in this country, thousands of men who realise that the newspaper stunts which have been worked against the unemployment insurance scheme have been the greatest danger to the continuance of that system for those people for whom it is the duty of this House, in our modern social outlook, to make provision. In my own constituency, which is not so many miles from that of the right hon. Gentleman, I have, every time I go down there, to meet one or two, and only one or two, out of thousands, whom the working men who are in the room with me say ought not to be helped to batten upon this fund, and I believe that, by the way in which the Minister has conducted this Bill through the House, she has made the position of the unemployment insurance scheme, for those who are genuinely entitled to its benefits according to the normal standards of the working classes of this country, infinitely stronger than it was before.
I do not intend to say anything more with regard to what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, except this, that, when he says that the last thing the Government ought to do is to touch the pittance that certain people get, those are exactly the words in which we find the justification for this Bill, because we believe that, unless some such Measure as this is passed, we shall find that, not the mere small things that are contemplated by this Bill, but far larger and more sweeping reductions, will be made in the very near future. While we may regret that the last few days of the Session should have been spent in a sort of civil war on this side of the House, I am certain that the party will be able to face the electors with a clear conscience, and I cannot help thinking that the irresponsible Labour party below the Gangway might have found a better spokesman to voice its opinion against the Third Reading than the right hon. Baronet who has apparently deserted us. We had two Baronets in the party at the beginning of the Session. Apparently we do not move fast enough for the Baronets,
but I am sure we are moving fast enough, and steadily enough, to satisfy our loyal supporters in the country.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I do not want to give a silent vote on the Bill, but I want to express my great disappointment at the developments in connection with it. The great question of unemployment has held, and is holding, the country up to a tremendous degree. The intensified feeling of the utter inability of the Government to grapple with it has become so serious that to me it is amazing that they should have presented such a position as to say, "We are not able to grapple with this question." Some people are getting unemployment benefit who ought not to get it. We do not know who they are, but there are suspicions, and all the three parties are reckoned to have become consolidated on this, that, to use the right hon. Lady's phrase, they are going on an exploration expedition to discover those who may have been getting benefit who ought not to have got it. The travesty of the whole situation, particularly for a Labour Government, is to me appalling. I can quite understand the difficulty as to the Baronets, but that does not get over the central point of the whole thing, which concerns the men and women who are unemployed and who are likely not to get benefit.
We are in duty bound to acknowledge that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has done magnificent service in the handling of this question. There are growls from the personal point of view but, setting these aside and looking at his handling of the question, where he appealed to the Attorney-General on what will be the outcome of the phraseology of one of those Amendments, and scored all along the line, that in itself was a remarkably creditable piece of work. In addition to that, the party and the Government, by their own acknowledgments, have paid eloquent tribute to the influence of the minority, which has been going into the Lobby—17, 14, 18. It is not a question of automatic voting. It is a question of the influence of that minority. The influence is splendid. The hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) was followed by other lady Members of the House, and it only needed a Liberal Member to settle the job. It was very noticeable when that
stage was reached that the right hon. Baronet said something which, whether you agree with him or not, was correct. He said the Government are getting into a deeper pit.
Take the situation on this Bill. There is practically the consolidation of the three political forces on this issue, that we are going out on an exploration expedition to try and discover—that is what the right hon. Lady on the Front Bench herself said—a very small number of people who have been getting that to which they were not entitled. It is a chase after a mouse. The Government seemingly are pledged to grapple with the great anomalies, but the one amazing anomaly, in the midst of the scientific advancement in this and other civilised countries, which we have not settled is the question of enabling people to live. It is an amazing spectacle. And yet we have reports specifically bearing upon the underlying question of how people are doing under our financial system. We have the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that we are not going to have any discussion, not even any talk, about a matter which it is said is of the utmost importance and yet must be postponed. We are not to have any elucidation after all the investigation by experts of the underlying factor, the financial issue. There is not to be one discussion but a hasty conference to clear up the German anomaly. That has to be done at all costs, and there is to be a squaring of it. But upon this question of unemployment insurance it is another story. You are here and now to determine the position by means of an outside body. The Government do not care to take the responsibility. They said: "We will relegate this question to an outside body and will pack it in such a fashion that the dice will be loaded against the personalia involved."

Mr. MILLS: What the Hell is the hon. Member talking about?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The hon. Gentleman wants to know what the Hell we are talking about. [Interruption.] It is the one department that I am not bound to acknowledge.

Mr. MILLS: You ought to have been here to hear the discussion.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I have been here throughout this discussion, hour after hour.

Mr. MILLS: In the Committee stage?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I have been following the discussion elsewhere. One cannot always manage to be here, but for nine years I have been giving attention to my duties here. I should have been here all the time you were talking about this matter if I had been able to be present. You must make some allowance for that. [Interruption.] I certainly would have been here. I would be the last man to neglect in any way the discharging of my duties. I have been attending to them elsewhere the best I could. I do not want to give a silent vote. I am not making any attempt to indulge in what may be called fireworks or anything of that sort from a Parliamentary point of view. I can see that steady queue of suffering men and women gradually dropping away from the Exchanges unable to get benefit, living in appalling conditions, and we are utterly unable to tell them where they can get work or to do anything for them at all. They are looking to the Government to deal resolutely with the issues.
The constituency which I represent is going deeper and deeper into misery. Big concerns are losing their business, masses of people are unable to get the chance of a look-in, and the Government's explanation is that, even at the best, they do not expect that very much can come out of it all. To me it is an ignominous failure on the part of the Labour forces. They are going deeper and deeper into the way of saying: "We have to follow the lines of orthodox political propaganda. The House is faced with powerful forces with which it cannot cope. We have to try to work on the old fashioned lines." The once Liberal or Radical party becomes now the Labour party, and it becomes consolidated while the squeeze still proceeds on the lines of this Bill. [Interruption.] When you come here you have to forget those you represent. I know that kind of Parliamentary movement. I find men getting appointments here, and then snapping their fingers at the struggles outside. I know what is going on, perfectly well. I know about the buttressing of the whole
political situation. The Labour party as a great moral propaganda, as a great moral movement, is failing because so many members of it find it so convenient to follow along the tracks that other men have followed. The motto is: "Take things easy. Do not fight, do not struggle for those outside." So far as I am concerned, when I see this sort of thing I say, God help me, I am for none of it!

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) reinforces the truth that some of the most interesting occasions in this House are those which disclose a deep difference between different sections of the same party. On this occasion there is a fundamental cleavage with regard to this Bill between the Socialist benches above and below the Gangway. There may be broad differences between us and the Government and their supporters, but they are not so deep and so fundamental as are the differences on either side of the narrow Gangway on the opposite side of the House. The importance of this Bill is two fold. In the first place, it shows that the Minister clearly realises the imperfections of the present unemployment insurance system. She knows, and has admitted by the Bill that reforms are necessary. This Bill is only the first step; it is tentative, it is confused, it is hesitating. It is not an organic reform or part, of an organic reform, but it quite clearly establishes the principle vouched for by the Government and hon. Members on the benches opposite, that a reform in our unemployment insurance system is necessary. Hon. Members below the Gangway have no wish for any reform either as regards short time or intermittent workers, or others. In fact, the more spent the better. They are not evolutionary Socialists like the Minister of Labour or the Secretary of State for the Dominions. They would like to make an end of the present structure—

Mr. SANDHAM: Before it ends itself.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That last remark illustrates the tone and temper of hon. Members opposite. The Minister has also taken another step. We have to realise that the pressure upon parties to use unemployment insurance for election-
eering purposes is very great, and most hon. Members will agree that it is a danger against which safeguards must be provided as far as possible. The Minister has set up a kind of buffer state in the Advisory Committee, and, if it proves good, it is a wise thing to do, particularly as the country is facing a very difficult situation at the present time. It has to face economic questions of extraordinary complication, and a. mistake will be very difficult to repair. We can the less afford to make any mistakes because we are so dependent on our overseas trade. Therefore, in this difficult transitional period a buffer state, if it is a good one, may be an exceedingly interesting development. But you have to combine two different features, first, the power of Parliament to control policy, and, in the second place, to give freedom to individual members from a too great electioneering pressure. Anyone who has gone into the matter closely will realise how difficult it is to set up an institution of that kind. Here we have an experiment in the form of the Advisory Committee. Whether it will work and take root only the future can show, but, at any rate, it is better than to continue making unemployment insurance a pawn in election contests.
Those are two reasons why we think that the Bill, however imperfect it may be in its details, is one against which we should not, in the circumstances, divide. On the other hand, it still remains a strange phenomenon that if I have to vote at all I shall support the Bill in the Lobby, whilst the Government's enemies are those of its own household. The reason is really quite plain; it is because the Government have changed considerably in their outlook since they came into office two years ago. If anyone doubts that, they have only to compare the speeches made by Ministers before the General Election with the speeches made since. They will then understand why it is that "Labour and the Nation" is such an inexhaustible mine of broken promises. The real fact is that the Government have come up against the logic of facts, and have changed their opinions on certain subjects. It is quite natural and right that they should change. But it is not the Minister of Labour only. It is also her colleagues—the Dominions Secretary with
regard to unemployment and the cures for it. So has the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his newly expressed conviction that too much taxation is bad for industry.
The reason for the patchwork character of their Bills and of their administration is that they are trying to combine the old and the new, and the old garment and the new patches do not go well together. An hon. Member opposite shakes his head. I ask him to consider the anomalies that there are or that may arise under the present Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that it is quite possible that this Bill, even with the emendations made to-day, while it will end some anomalies, will probably create others just as striking. Take the case of the people who work at the weekend for two days. You have these in a different category from the people working three days a week. When we realise how under other conditions before now work has been adjusted so as to enable benefits to be claimed, we can hardly imagine that we shall not get the people who work for two days at the end of the week somehow making arrangements in order to bring themselves into the more favourable category for consideration.
That being so, I am not in the least surprised that the Minister should want to proceed by way of regulations, for she will want to change pretty quickly as anomalies are being created, and will want to do so without undergoing more Parliamentary discussion and criticism than she can help. If I had proposed to make regulations of this kind I wonder what would have been the outcry from hon. Members opposite. I would have been attacked for reintroducing Star Chamber government of the worst kind, such as that in the reign of the James's. Has not the wheel come full circle when I find the method now introduced by those who would have been my critics three or four years ago? I remember that I was attacked as Minister of Labour for reintroducing Ministerial discretion. But, in heaven's name, I introduced it only in regard to extended or transitional benefit. I did not give myself power to deal by way of regulation with standard benefit. I always considered, and I consider still,
that there is a vast difference between standard benefit, for which a person has paid, and transitional benefit, for which payment has not been made by way of contributions. While therefore we shall not divide against the Bill, we shall take no responsibility for approval of the Measure.
I want to take one more point about which a great deal was made in the course of the long Debate, to which, unfortunately, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) was unable to listen the other day. That was the question of genuine care for the unemployed. I have very great sympathy indeed with the view and the outlook of the hon. Member for Gorbals. I have been perfectly frank throughout the evening in every statement I have made, and I will be perfectly frank in this. I have sympathy with his view for the reason that I realise quite well that he has men side by side with him in the North who are unemployed and suffering distress, and, it may be, great hardship, and he personally feels their position acutely. I can realise that there are women there, for example, to whom it may make a vast difference, especially when newly married, to have some money coming to them as their own, as distinct from what they may get from their husbands. I can well understand the point; of view which makes the hon. Member feel that he would like all classes of people to have rather more money coming in, from whatever source it comes. I know he believes that sincerely.
Some of us take rather a different view of the problem. We do not think it is so simple; we think it is a highly complicated problem. How complicated it is can he seen by anyone who has tried to read the Macmillan Report, and finds how difficult it is to comprehend. I am going through it page by page with the greatest care, because some of us feel that unless we do try to understand its complexities we shall never be able to give help to the unemployment system and to the people unemployed as we ought to. Unless we understand the complexities, action taken out of mere kind-heartedness, if it is mistaken, may do more harm than good to the people we wish to benefit. That is quite a different point of view, but I say to the hon. Member for Gorbals that just as I believe
he is absolutely sincere from his point of view, so I hope he will believe that I am absolutely sincere in putting this point of view forward.
On the other hand, when it comes to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and others, it is a different state of affairs. The hon. Member for Bridge ton does not look on any of us as friends of the unemployed. It is only he and his friends who are friends of the unemployed, and the rest of us on both sides are to be condemned. Pharisees of all generations are of much the same breed. They trust in themselves that they are righteous and they despise others. Both the Minister and I have had the hon. Member's criticisms. They have probably been more unpleasant to her than to me. Rain is unpleasant when beating in the face, but probably it is still more unpleasant when it is coming from the back down the nape of your neck. But if it is more unpleasant for her, at any rate let us realise that that is the kind of opposition we always have to face in our time. It does not do either of us much harm. As a matter of fact, I always think that the bark of the hon. Member for Bridgeton is much worse than his bite. His bark is often sonorous and impressive, but I think his bite matters little. I should think the Minister is just as little apprehensive of it as I am.

Mr. THOMAS: Whatever may be said of the varying stages of this Bill the last hour has revealed a self-righteousness in different parts of the House, which is totally unexpected. The one thing I would complain of more than anything else in connection with these Debates, not only to-day but from the introduction of the Bill, is the claim set out so often by the same people, that they are the only friends of the unemployed. I am always prepared to listen to argument. I am always prepared to pay tribute to the sincerity of any man or woman in this House, but I do object to any man or woman, or any section, claiming that they are the only honest people and the only people interested in the unemployed. Curiously enough the wind-up of this Debate was the most interesting of all. I heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Sir C. Trevelyan), a late colleague, that he left the Government because he heard that
the Government were concerned and interested in economy.

Sir C. TREVELYAN: No, I did not say that. What I said was that one of the reasons why I left the Government—one of the reasons—was the economy campaign announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. THOMAS: Since my right hon. Friend has waited until to-night to state publicly one of the reasons, all I can say is that this explanation which he has given to-night, publicly, is new to most of his colleagues.

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I gave that as one of the reasons before the party meeting.

Mr. THOMAS: My right hon. Friend says that he gave that as one of the reasons to a party meeting. I said, speaking as a colleague, that it was the first time that I heard of that as being a reason, but, at all events, it ill becomes him as a late colleague, by the very nature of things, because he himself was in the Cabinet, to say what he said tonight. All Cabinets, no matter what the Governments may be, from time to time find themselves with legitimate differences between the Members, but it does not follow that when a decision is arrived at everybody who is aggrieved with that decision, necessarily sells the pass. I say deliberately, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour so nobly, so magnificently, with such courage faced an unpopular programme, an unpopular situation and a real difficulty, that it ill becomes one of her late colleagues to have said what he said to-night. The only answer I give is, in the words of my right hon. Friend, that he has not been a long time a member of the Labour movement, and that is the difference which I hope he will understand and appreciate. There is one thing which the Labour movement at least appreciates. It is fair fighting and fair dealing.
11.0 p.m.
I want to submit on this occasion it equally ill-becomes the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) to level any criticism about party differences. It is true that we have seen an exhibition, but it is equally true that only yesterday
the right hon. Gentleman's party did not show a very happy combination, and he will admit that, when he talks of party differences, he has only to remember what took place yesterday to realise that it is not up to him to rub in the differences on this side. When the Bill was introduced, it was made perfectly clear that the only object and intention was, if possible, to remove the existing anomalies. In the Committee stage and in the Report stage to-day every effort was made to meet any reasonable case which was put up. We believe that we have met the case. We believe that we have done something to remove all the gossip, all the slander, and all the abuse of certain cases that do not reflect the real position of the genuinely unemployed worker. That was our only object. That was our intention, and I believe that this Bill, when it becomes law, will be administered in such a way as not to create an injustice, but to remove any genuine abuse. That, after all, is all that the Government sought.

Mr. FRANK OWEN: It is plain that the right hon. Gentleman was not very happy in his remarks. I am not surprised, because it is equally obvious that the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) had got hold of a carbon copy of parts of his speech and delivered it immediately in front of him. Whatever else has happened to-night, we have witnessed as fine an exhibition of tactics as we shall ever see here. The cards have been laid on the table with a vengeance. What are the tactics of the party above the Gangway, a party which scorns tactics? They drove this Government into this Bill. Theirs is the primary responsibility for the Bill, but when it comes to voting on it, they run away. Is the Bill too drastic, or is it not drastic enough?

Mr. REMER: It is silly.

Mr. OWEN: No doubt the hon. Member's party will do better when they come in. They will deal more drastically with the unemployed. I hope that that will be remembered in the country. What are the tactics of the party opposite? The tactics of the Clydeside group have been plainly explained to-night. It is to
throw upon this party the odium of this Bill. The right hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Sir C. Trevelyan) has explained that point. [Interruption.] At least they are honest. The rest of the Socialist party are saying in the industrial Divisions what they dare not say in the House, and that is that the Liberal party are responsible for this Bill. It is not true. [Interruption.] It is not true that the Liberal party are responsible for the Bill. [Interruption.] We did indeed want to reform the insurance scheme, and so did the whole House, but we said the whole time that while we were doing that, parallel with that, we must find work for the people taken off the unemployment insurance scheme. That has not been done. We in this party are always accused of tactics. This is the one party that on this occasion has no tactics. We are plainly going to carry the baby from the party over there. I for one, and I speak only as a private Member, intend to go into the Lobby with the Clydeside Group. [Interruption.] Why not? I have no great mass of unemployed in my own Division. [Interruption.] Vote catching? Do you ever go vote catching? I am going into their Lobby because I hold this to be a mean and contemptible Bill.
You call it an anomalies Bill. Are there not the anomalies of the men out of benefit who cannot get benefit? What about the anomalies in that direction? This Bill deals merely with people who are seeking benefit to which they may not be entitled. What about the great mass of people who are entitled to benefit which they will not secure under this Bill? There is an anomaly there which ought to have been put right. Under this Bill you are selling the unemployed because you are afraid of tackling unemployment, just as a week ago you betrayed the miners. I am entitled to speak my mind and I am going to speak my mind. [Interruption.] Never mind about intelligence. Intelligence is not the supreme virtue. I am going into the Lobby with the Clydeside Members opposite—[Interruption.] I am— [Interruption.] It is not a new party. I am going in, and a great number of other Members would go in if they had the courage to do so. If this Bill had been brought in by the right hon. Gen-
tleman on these benches the whole of the benches opposite would have been in the Lobby with the Clydeside Members, and there would have been Members of other parties in the House who would have been in the Lobby with them, too. I protest against this Bill as a contemptible and a mean device.

Miss BONDFIELD rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes, 30.

Division No. 447.]
AYES.
[11.8 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morley, Ralph


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N)


Alpass, J. H.
Hardle, David (Rutherglen)
Mort, D. L.


Ammon, Charles George
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Muff, G.


Angell, Sir Norman
Haycock, A. W.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Arnott, John
Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, Hugh


Atkinson, C.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Ayles, Walter
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Barnes, Alfred John
Herriotts, J.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Barr, James
Hicks, Ernest George
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palmer, E. T.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hoffman, P. C.
Perry, S. F.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Benson, G.
Hopkin, Daniel
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Birkett, W. Norman
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Potts, John S.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Isaacs, George
Price, M. P.


Bowen, J. W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bromley, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Raynes, W. R.


Brothers, M.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Richards, R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Burgess, F. G.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Ritson, J.


Cameron, A. G.
Lang, Gorden
Romeril, H. G.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Rowson, Guy


Charleton, H. C.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Chater, Daniel
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sanders, W. S.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Sawyer, G. F.


Daggar, George
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Scott, James


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Leach, W.
Scurr, John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lees, J.
Sherwood, G. H.


Dixey, A. C.
Leonard, W.
Shield, George William


Dukes, C.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Duncan, Charles
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shillaker, J. F.


Ede, James Chuter
Logan, David Gilbert
Shinwell, E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Longbottom, A. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Egan, W. H.
Longden, F.
Simmons, C. J.


Elmley, Viscount
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)
Lunn, William
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Foot, Isaac
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Freeman, Peter
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McElwee, A.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gibbins, Joseph
McKinlay, A.
Sorensen, R.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gill, T. H.
McShane, John James
Strauss, G. R.


Gillett, George M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sullivan, J.


Gossling, A. G.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sutton, J. E.


Gould, F.
Manning, E. L.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mansfield, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marley, J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gray, Milner
Marshall, Fred
Thurtle, Ernest


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mathers, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Matters, L. W.
Toole, Joseph


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Middleton, G.
Tout, W. J.


Groves, Thomas E.
Mills, J. E.
Townend, A. E.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major J.
Vaughan, David


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Walker, J.


Wallace, H. W.
Westwood, Joseph
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Watkins, F. C.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Wellock, Wilfred
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Welsh, James (Paisley)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)



West, F. R.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Paling and Mr. Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sandham, E.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Horrabin, J. F.
Scrymgeour, E.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Brockway, A. Fenner
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Maxton, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Millar, J. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Buchanan, G.
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Wise, E. F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)



Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Remer, John R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley.

Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 20.

Division No. 448.]
AYES.
[11.18 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gibbins, Joseph
Leonard, W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gill, T. H.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gillett, George M.
Logan, David Gilbert


Alpass, J. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Longbottom, A. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Gossling, A. G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Angell, Sir Norman
Gould, F.
Lunn, William


Arnott, John
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Ayles, Walter
Gray, Milner
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
McElwee, A.


Barnes, Alfred John
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McKinlay, A.


Barr, James
Grundy, Thomas W.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Manning, E. L.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mansfield, W.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marley, J.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Marshall, Fred


Benson, G.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mathers, George


Birkett, W. Norman
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Matters, L. W.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Middleton, G.


Bowen, J. W.
Haycock, A. W.
Mills, J. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayday, Arthur
Milner, Major J.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Montague, Frederick


Bromley, J.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Brothers, M.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morley, Ralph


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Herriotts, J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Burgess, F. G.
Hicks, Ernest George
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cameron, A. G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mort, D. L.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hoffman, P. C.
Muff, G.


Charleton, H. C.
Hellins, A.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Chater, Daniel
Hopkin, Daniel
Murnin, Hugh


Cluse, W. S.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Naylor, T. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Isaacs, George
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Compton, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Daggar, George
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Palmer, E. T.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Perry, S. F.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lang, Gordon
Potts, John S.


Dukes, C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Price, M. P.


Duncan, Charles
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Ede, James Chuter
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Edmunds, J. E.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Raynes, W. R.


Egan, W. H.
Lawrence, Susan
Richards, R.


Elmley, Viscount
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Foot, Isaac
Lawson, John James
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Freeman, Peter
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Ritson, J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Leach, W.
Romeril, H. G.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lees, J.
Rowson, Guy


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wellock, Wilfred


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Sorensen, R.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Sanders, W. S.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Sawyer, G. F.
Strauss, G. R.
West, F. R.


Scott, James
Sullivan, J.
Westwood, Joseph


Scurr, John
Sutton, J. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Sherwood, G. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Shield, George William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shillaker, J. F.
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Shinwell, E.
Toole, Joseph
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Tout, W. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Simmons, C. J.
Townend, A. E.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Slich, Charles H.
Vaughan, David
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Viant, S. P.



Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Walker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wallace, H. W.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Watkins, F. C.



NOES.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Stephen, Campbell


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Kirkwood, D.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Brockway, A. Fenner
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Maxton, James
Wise, E. F.


Buchanan, G.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)



Groves, Thomas E.
Sandham, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Beckett and Mr. Kinley.


Horrabin, J. F.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — CONSUMERS' COUNCIL [EXPENSES].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order 71A.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') to provide for the constitution of a Consumers Council, to define the powers and duties of that Council, to enable the Board of Trade to regulate by order the prices to be charged for certain commodities and the charges to be made in respect of sales thereof, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in paying such remuneration (if any) and such travelling and subsistence allowances to the chairman, deputy-chairman, and members of the Council constituted by the said Act, such remuneration to accountants and other assistants employed by the Council, and such other expenses of the Council as the Board of Trade, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine; and
(b) any other expenses incurred by the Board of Trade under the said Act."—[King's Recommendation signified],—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I think it will
be for the convenience of the Committee, as the Opposition have a number of Amendments down, if I move the Resolution formally and allow hon. Members to move their Amendments.

The CHAIRMAN: Before I call on the first Amendment, I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee—I am in the hands of the Committee—that the first four Amendments might be discussed together. They are all on the question of expenditure.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: I beg to move, in line 8, to leave out the words "such remuneration (if any) and."
I wish to direct attention to that part of the Resolution which provides that the members of the Consumers' Council are to be paid. I object to those words in Resolutions for three reasons. First of all because of the amount of the expenditure involved; secondly, because I do not believe that it is in fact necessary to pay any remuneration at all, and thirdly, because I believe that the result, if remuneration is paid, will be positively harmful. Take the question of the amount at issue. Anyone who turns to the Consumers' Council Bill will, I think, probably form the opinion that in being asked to pay members of the council we are only being asked to pay at most seven people. That is quite incorrect. As a matter of fact, as the Bill was originally drafted, power was taken to add any
number of additional members of the council for the purpose of particular investigations.
The Sub-section dealing with that in the Bill, as originally drafted, read in this way. Clause 1, Sub-section (3):
The Board of Trade may at any time appoint such number of persons as they think fit to act as additional members of the council for the purposes of any investigation which the council are proposing to institute.
I am glad to say that that has to some extent been modified. As Members of the Committee are, no doubt, aware, Members of the Opposition in the Committee upstairs are struggling to improve the Bill in the face of every obstacle that the ingenuity of the First Lord of the Admiralty can put in their way. They have, however, at least succeeded in this, that the Committee have at their suggestion modified this proposal with regard to additional members by adding to the Sub-section I have just read these words:
Provided the total number of persons so appointed in respect of any one investigation shall not exceed six.
In addition to that we have the obiter dicta from the First Lord of the Admiralty to the effect that on every such sub-committee there must be at least one of those seven regular members of the council. If the Committee will make a little calculation they will see that there are seven original members of the council and that at least one member has to be on each sub-committee. There cannot be more than seven subcommittees, and as the number of additional members on each sub-committee must not exceed six, that means that the additional members cannot exceed, but may attain, 42. Add to those 42 the seven original members and you get 49 members. I should like the Committee clearly to appreciate the fact that when the First Lord comes here to-night with a proposal which on the face of it is to provide remuneration possibly for seven persons he is really asking power to provide remuneration for 49 persons. To my mind that is just the kind of additional expenditure which at the present time above all others we should avoid. There have been one or two very grave warnings addressed to the House and to the
nation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of public finances, though relative to the sums dealt with in the Budget this amount is, of course, small. It is very probable that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was here to-night he would agree that by refusing to be led into small unnecessary expenditure of this kind in many directions we can avoid adding to our financial burdens to an extent that may ultimately endanger the financial stability of the country. Therefore, on the ground of the amount to be expended, I object to the presence of those words.
On the second point as to whether such payments are necessary, it is agreed that one of the most agreeable features of our public life is that people of all ranks and occupations are willing to be called upon to give their time and services to the State on commissions or committees of inquiry. There is no difficulty in finding suitable people of experience who are prepared to work on such commissions or committees in a public spirit and without payment. I should have thought that if there were any people who appreciate the truth of that statement it would be the Members of the present Government, who have created a record in the number of commissions and committees of inquiry they have established. There is hardly any difficulty with which they have been faced that they have not tried to shelve by appointing a commission or committee. As a general rule members of these commissions or committees are not paid. The expenses of the members of the council are provided for. Travelling expenses are to be paid to the chairman, deputy-chairman and members of the committee. Therefore, by accepting membership of this body without remuneration, the members would not be put to heavy personal expense. Moreover, the work which the members of the council will have to perform will, to some extent, be lightened by the provision of paid assistance. It is specifically laid down in the Resolution that remuneration is to be provided for accountants and for assistance employed by the council. That assistance is intended to save the time of the members of the committee. On these grounds and on the known availability of people for work of this kind
and the fact that expenses are to be paid and that expert assistance is to be provided, no case can be made out for salaries for the members of the council.
In regard to the third point, I suggest that if the members were paid a salary it would be found to be harmful. If you have a number of people, eminent in their particular line, put on the council, without remuneration they will have other interests and they will devote such time as may be necessary for serious inquiry. They will have no temptation to waste time upon trivial or unnecessary inquiries. On the other hand, if you pay them to do the work and they have no important inquiry before them at a given moment they will naturally be anxious to show that they are earning their salaries and in the absence of some really important inquiry may be tempted to take on less important and trivial inquiries. That may not appear a very serious matter at first sight, but look at it from the point of view of the people who will be the subject of these inquiries. It means that they will be put to a considerable amount of expense and time and trouble in getting up their defence and I submit that it is in the highest degree undesirable that traders should be put to all this annoyance and expenditure of time and money unless a grave cause can be shown that an inquiry is necessary into a really serious matter. For that reason I maintain that if these members are paid there will be a greater risk of unnecessary inquiries and a consequent waste of time and money to all concerned in the trades affected. Let me sum up the argument. I submit that the payment of members of the council is undesirable, first, because of the actual amount of money at issue in paying 49 members, secondly, because no ease can be made out for such payment as suitable people can be got without payment, and thirdly, because the payment of members of the council would be positively harmful. For these reasons I move the Amendment.

Sir BASIL PETO: On a point of Order. You have indicated, Mr. Chairman, that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we debated other Amendments on this present Amendment. I did not intervene earlier because I desire to hear what the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis)
had to say. He has dealt entirely, and very properly, with his own Amendment, but the principle of his Amendment is quite different to that which I have put on the Paper, and I cannot see how we can have a very intelligent Debate if all these different points are to be dealt with at the same time. I have no desire to intervene on this Amendment, but I do desire to maintain my right to move my Amendment later, to leave out paragraph (b), and to speak on it. It raises a simple point but a separate point which cannot be raised on this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the objection of the hon. Member arises in any way. I did not intend that he should not be allowed to move his Amendment, and have a Division on it if necessary. That would be quite in order.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is it not a fact that if objection is taken the Amendments must be taken separately, and is it not necessary that we should have four separate small discussions?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member might have raised his objection when I just made the suggestion about discussing the Amendments together. Because of the hon. and gallant Member's silence I thought he had agreed to the suggestion. There is no difficulty about discussing the Amendments. If I now call upon the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) he can discuss the proposal of his Amendment if he likes.

Sir B. PETO: There is nothing that I wish to say to the Committee on the Amendment now before it, but I do desire to move an Amendment which stands in my name. When we come to the end of the discussion on this Amendment, I presume that you will put the Question and that we shall have a Division. Then I want an opportunity of putting the arguments in favour of my Amendment, which has been on the Paper for weeks.

The CHAIRMAN: I am in the hands of the Committee about that. If the hon. Member wants to move his Amendment later, he can do so.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I am interested in the Amendment which seeks to insert the words:
Provided that the total expenditure incurred by the Boar of Trade under the said Act Shall not exceed £20,000.
While I am in agreement with what the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) has said, I want to deal rather more fully with the total expense which I presume the First Lord will shortly ask this Committee to sanction. To-night we are very largely repeating the position in which we found ourselves when this House sanctioned the Financial Resolution on the Coal Mines Bill and set up the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission. I can quote no less an authority than the President of the Board of Trade, who introduced this hardy annual last year, and possibly will have the opportunity next year of introducing it again:
The position in this respect"—
that is, as regards the probable expenditure on the Committee—
is substantially the same as the position which existed when we were discussing amalgamation commissioners under the Coal Mines Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1930; col. 1304, Vol. 238.]
Therefore, it is very relevant, in considering the expenditure which we are asked to sanction now, that we should take into consideration what happened after we had sanctioned a similar expenditure on the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission. We are asked this evening for a blank cheque to pay for the expenses of the Consumers' Council. Let me remind the Committee—and I have no doubt the First Lord of the Admiralty will recall these words, though perhaps he will alter his argument a little tonight in the light of events which have happened since—of what the President of the Board of Trade said when he introduced the last Financial Resolution on 8th May, 1930:
We are taking powers under this Resolution for remuneration if it is required. It may be, as is the case with the amalgamation commissioners under the Coal Mines Bill, that we may have the offer of the services of very able people, thoroughly competent in every way, who do not expect any remuneration and would be content to have their out-of-pocket expenses covered or some small honorarium or allowance of that description."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1930; col. 1304, Vol. 238.]
I am sorry the Secretary for Mines is not here to-night. He would listen with
pleasure, no doubt, to that optimistic reference to the Financial Resolution for the Coal Bill because, when we had sanctioned that Resolution, we were astonished to find that, far from the members of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission working for "a small honorarium or allowance of that description," with mere out-of-pocket expenses, this House had committed itself to an expenditure of £7,000 a year for the chairman—and I suggest that the chairman of the Consumers' Council will have a no less responsible or onerous position—and a minimum of 700 guineas a year for each member of the Commission to the number of five. Hon. Members will be well advised to take notice of what I am saying because it was not until we drew attention to the fact that they awoke to a realisation of the monstrous salaries a Socialist Government was paying. The Coal Commissioners numbered five. The Consumers' Council, nominally consist of seven members, but by a very simple arithmetical sum we find that the actual number we are asked to permit the President of the Board of Trade to employ under this Financial Resolution is no less than 49–49 potential, if not actual, members, with a chairman and vice-chairman. If they are paid on the same scale as were the Coal Mines Commissioners, the Committee will appreciate that we are involving ourselves—not in salaries alone—in a very much greater expenditure than the President of the Board of Trade last year suggested would be the maximum sum which this House might find itself called upon to pay for the luxury of this very futile Consumers' Council. I would point out that while we are starting with seven members for the Council, the President of the Board of Trade has power to add to the number. The existing Food Council which the right hon. Gentleman considers inadequate to fulfil the task he has in mind consist of 12 nominal members and 10 active members. Therefore, under that head alone we may be involved in considerable expenditure. The first question which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman is, on what scale does he anticipate that the chairman, the vice-chairman and the other members of this council will be paid. The Parliamentary Secre-
tary, a year ago, when he introduced the previous Financial Resolution said:
It is impossible to give an exact figure, but in so far as it is possible to calculate what may be the outside figure under this Bill, the figure mentioned is one considered reasonable in the circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1930; cols. 1311–1312, Vol. 238.]
The figure mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade—and he analysed the method by which he arrived at the figure—was £20,000. If that estimate is anywhere near a correct estimate, then I suggest that, in these times of financial stringency, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that we must cut our coat according to our cloth, and put off schemes' involving expenditure until more prosperous days, the First Lord of the Admiralty is not entitled to ask the Committee for a blank cheque—for a mere token Vote. I have no reason to assume that the right hon. Gentleman will differ from the President of the Board of Trade in the estimate of last year. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the figure of £20,000 is not going to be exceeded, he would be well advised to put in a limit of that amount. The right hon. Gentleman, however, will probably refuse to do so, and I can well understand his position because he knows that the figure given by the President of the Board of Trade last year and given in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill of this year, is totally inadequate and cannot cover the vast expenditure which is envisaged.

Mr. HAYCOCK: What is the hon. Member's estimate?

12 m.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I am asking the First Lord of the Admiralty to give us his estimate. Last year we were told that it would be £20,000, but we had not then seen the operation of the Coal Mines Commission proposal. I suggest that the President of the Board of Trade, who talked about an honorarium and about small expenses in connection with that body, would not have given that estimate had he known that a Minister associated with his own Department, and more or less under his control, would sanction an expenditure of £7,000 a year on the Chairman of that Commission alone. I also ask the First Lord whether membership of the Consumers' Council is to
be a full-time job? We have had no indication in Committee. We have been struggling with the Bill in Committee for the last few weeks, in the face of the very greatest difficulties, but we have received no information on that point. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman will give as curt and inadequate reply to our questions on this occasion, as he has been accustomed to give to our arguments in Committee. Will this be a full-time job? I ask for this reason. The right hon. Gentleman cannot ride off on the vague generalities on which the President of the Board of Trade rode a year ago. We have the valuable experience now of the Coal Mines Commission—

Mr. HAYCOCK: That is only the seventeenth time you have said that.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I am relating my repetition of that statement to another argument. I mentioned it in connection with salaries; I now mention it in connection with the services of this commission. The President of the Board of Trade, in the Committee stage of the Coal Mines Bill, said:
They are not to be full time people. They must be remunerated to some extent in terms of honorarium or allowance not disproportionate to what would be some moderate recognition of the work they perform. I have explained that to get men on full time, to give up all their other interests, would involve a large payment. Neither the Board of Trade nor this House nor the men themselves would want that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1930; col. 2159, Vol. 235.]
I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of what happened after that statement, whether the members of this council will be full-time members. The President of the Board of Trade went on to say:
If we set out to get full time commissioners and to pay them a salary which would be reasonable, that would be a large charge upon public funds. Quite frankly it is not intended to do anything of the kind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1930; col. 2134, Vol. 235.]
I always suspect the President of the Board of Trade when he is most frank with the House. We never imagined after that statement that we should have a full-time chairman and other members at the enormous salaries which he was prepared to pay. I therefore ask whether the members of the Consumers' Council will be full time. How does the
right hon. Gentleman imagine that £20,000, which is the estimate in the Financial Memorandum, is possibly going to cover the vast expenditure that will be incurred under this Bill? How does he imagine that the council, with all the dictatorial, extensive, autocratic powers of investigation which he has given it, can possibly carry out its duties of investigation into every stage of the price structure from production to the ultimate consumer, at an expenditure of £20,000? Is any provision made in this Resolution for the payment of witnesses? We know that owing to a lapse on the part of his supporters, owing to the apathy of those enthusiastic guardians of the interests of the consumer, the right hon. Gentleman was unable to secure the support of the Committee for Clause 3 of the Bill, which gave him powers of compulsory investigation and of obtaining evidence on oath compulsorily. He has expressed the intention of securing the reinsertion of the Clause if he can obtain the support of the Liberal party, and if he does so then I shall move an Amendment which is designed to ascertain whether it is proposed to pay the expenses of these witnesses. It is obvious that when the council undertake an investigation and summon witnesses from all parts of the country those witnesses will be put to considerable outlay. I ask whether the expenses of the witnesses are covered by the Financial Resolution, and whether it is thought that £20,000 is really adequate to meet not only the expenses of the commission, but the salaries of the council and the expenses of the witnesses. By Sub-section (2) of Clause 6 the Board of Trade may
institute and carry on proceedings in respect of an offence under this Act in any case where the Board consider it desirable so to do.
Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that the Board can carry through proceedings against a large trading corporation without incurring considerable expense? How can £20,000 suffice for all these purposes? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer, and I hope it will be a more adequate answer than the type to which we have been accustomed in Committee upstairs.
Before the Committee parts with this Resolution in these times of financial stress it has a right to know to what it is committing itself, and certainly a right to criticise the mere token Vote of £20,000 which the President of the Board of Trade put forward in what I consider to be an ill considered estimate of the expenses. We are not so much in the dark as we were a year ago. Then we knew nothing of the expenses of the Coal Commission. Since then we know to what we were committed in that matter. For that reason I support the Amendment. I do not know which Amendment I am supporting, but the one I wish to support is that to limit the expenditure to £20,000. The Committee has no right to commit the country to a vast expenditure on a council which will do no good to consumers and considerable harm to the trading interests of the country.

Major SALMON: I rise to move the Amendment which provides that only £20,000 shall be—

Sir B. PETO: On a point of Order. Can we have two Amendments before the Committee at the same time?

The CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee realise that several Amendments are being referred to in the discussion, and that the hon. and gallant Member intends to refer to one specifically.

Major SALMON: I should have thought that the First Lord of the Admiralty would have given us an explanation of the purposes for which this money is wanted. I would remind him that some little time ago, on the last occasion when the Financial Resolution was moved in the House, the Prime Minister said that the estimate had been put in after very careful consideration, and that it was not at all a token figure. It must be obvious to anyone who has studied this matter that it will be impossible to carry out the Bill for anything like £20,000. I say that because the Government are considering a very important Measure which, in the words of the President of the Board of Trade, represents the whole of the distributive trades of the country, which is more than one-half of the national income. I should have thought that when the Government were going to ask for a roving commission such as this they would have given careful consideration to the question of
how much it would cost. The first thing to consider is the composition of the commission itself. As my hon. Friend has reminded us, the Government found it necessary to pay the chairman of the Coal Commission £7,000 a year.

Mr. HAYCOCK: How much do you get a year? [Interruption.]

Major SALMON: If the hon. Member will allow me to develop my point, he will see what I am driving at. The point I want to make is this. If it was necessary, in appointing the Chairman of the Coal Commission, to pay £7,000 a year to get a man of sufficient capacity to look after one interest alone, how much more is it necessary to pay a man who has to possess experience, not of one industry but of the whole of the industries of the country. The Chairman of this Commission must be a man who has the respect and confidence both of the consumer and of the producer, and the Government are more likely to have to pay a man of that character £10,000 or £14,000 a year. It would have been very interesting if the First Lord of the Admiralty, in introducing this Measure, had given us some indication whether he intended to go in for dug-outs or for live individuals on the Commission. Sufficient attention has not been given to the amount to be paid to the other commissioners. The members of the Coal Commission are getting £1,500 a year. My hon. Friend asked if this was going to be a whole-time or part-time job. I suggest it will probably be a whole-time job. If the Government had really appreciated what they were legislating for they would have realised that if the Commission was to be of any use at all, it would have to watch the markets of the world hour by hour and day by day. The Commission are going to do something which has never been done in the history of this country before—to decide what the selling price of the commodities shall be and what the profits of the dealers selling the commodities shall be. It is evident that if this Bill is to be carried out in a practical manner the first thing the Commission will have to decide is what is or is not a reasonable profit. You cannot decide upon your selling-price until you know what is or what is not reasonable.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot enter into the merits of the Bill as a whole. That is a matter for the Committee upstairs.

Major SALMON: I was only giving that as an illustration of the capacity that the individual would have need to have. I submit that it is germane to the question, when Commissioners are to be appointed, that we should have some regard to the character of the work that they are to perform. We have to look around for very eminent and practical persons, if the duties are to be carried out in the manner that I presume the Government have in mind. If, on the other hand, the Government know that this is mere camouflage, and that it is not possible, as I do not believe it is, to do any real good, they ought not to waste the time of the Committee upstairs, or of the House of Commons, in asking for a blank cheque to disrupt and create uneasiness in the whole of the industries of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman has not favoured us to-night with any explanation whatsoever and that, I submit, is very discourteous to the Committee. On previous occasions, in Debates upon Financial Resolutions, the Minister in charge of it has generally had the courtesy to give some explanation. Unless we take the trouble to look up Debates that took place 12 months ago, we have not the slightest idea what this Financial Resolution is for.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I cannot permit the charge of discourtesy to pass. I particularly rose at the beginning of these proceedings and suggested that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I acted in the way I proposed. If any objection had been raised at that time, I should had no hesitation at all in giving a short explanation.

Major SALMON: I do not wish to make any charges against the right hon. Gentleman. If he says that that was in his mind, I do not wish to press the point further. What I desire to say is that when the Bill was introduced, a Financial Memorandum was presented with it, and that no figure was put down in it for the rent of the premises that would be occupied by the staff necessitated in carrying out the work. The President of the Board of Trade last
year, and again in the Bill that he presented this year, said that the great idea that he had was to build up a great pile of statistical information which the Government did not possess. I do not see any figure here for the amount of money that would be spent under the heading, "statistician." These gentlemen are rather costly. Total up the expenditure that would be involved by this Bill, and you will find that we should get nearer to the hundreds of thousands a year, instead to the mere £20,000 per year. I do not think it fair, either to the House or to the country, that we should give a blank cheque or a roving commission, to a Government Department in these difficult times, when our energies would be better spent in economising than in adding to the expenses of the nation. If the Government are honest in their desire to limit expenditure—and I want to apply an acid test of their honesty—they will not refuse to accept an Amendment to limit this expenditure to £20,000. It is evident, however, that they are not prepared to limit the expenditure, and I suggest that they are going to spend, not £20,000, but over £100,000. In the unfortunate period when we had food control, from £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 was spent on administration alone. I am not speaking of the cost of rationing, but of the control of foodstuffs. Here you are dealing, not with food alone, but with every industry in this country, and the House is being asked to give the Government a blank cheque which will probably involve the country in an enormous expenditure. It is the duty of the Minister in charge of the Bill to give us a full disclosure of what he is prepared to do, and also to limit the expenditure in which it is proposed to involve the country.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I am sorry that the First Lord should be fidgety because my hon. and gallant Friend said he was discourteous in not introducing the Resolution more fully, but it is an accusation which, unfortunately, has had to be made against him several times during the last few weeks, and I am getting accustomed to it. He is always laying himself open to it, and to-night he has started on the same sort of habit that he follows in broad daylight. There are one or two very remarkable things
about this Money Resolution. Not the least is the proverbial absence of the Financial Secretary, which I just touch upon in passing. We have learned never to expect him here. Another remarkable thing is the extraordinary delay in introducing this Resolution. It has been on the Paper for months; the Bill was read a First time nearly a year ago; the Second Reading was taken somewhere in March; and it is not until the day before the Committee is about to reach the Clause which deals with finance that, after Eleven at night, the Resolution is introduced without a word of explanation. That is very strange, and in itself would justify every hon. Member in this House putting up the most vigorous opposition to it. I understand that there are four Amendments under discussion, so I take it that the later one with which I am more particularly concerned is to be dealt with separately.
There is no excuse for paying any of the members of this council anything at all. No argument has been put forward as to why they should be paid. The only trouble is that we have to assume that they are likely to be paid from the words
such remuneration, if any.
No one, however, has said definitely that they are going to be paid, and we are left to try and decide from the deliberations of the Committee upstairs whether or not it is going to be a full-time job, and whether it is going to last more than a month or six weeks over the 12 months, so that the Government will think they ought to be paid, whereas if the time were something less they would probably take some precedent from the many Royal Commissions and committees that they have set up on an unpaid basis, and say that there is no particular reason why the Consumers' Council should be paid if the others are not.
I am not sure that the analogy of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell) with regard to the Coal Mines Bill was entirely right. After all, the object of that Bill was to force prices up, while it is stated that the object of the present Bill is to force prices down. This council might very well be paid nothing and take their remuneration in the satisfaction they will naturally feel at having done so great a public service, whereas those who forced up the price of
coal would have had so much on their conscience that they would not be entitled to remuneration. [An HON. MEMBER: "The wages of sin!"] The wages of sin would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £7,000 a year. The analogy is not quite correct. I put it to the First Lord in Committee that there is no reason to pay these councillors a permanent annual salary, incidentally, I suppose with pension rights, about which a word might well be spoken, remembering what happened to the Chairman of the other Committee, though the circumstances were so different.
The First Lord might very well have cleared up the point about the other expenses they have in mind. The memorandum does not make that clear except that it says that Clause 6, which has not been discussed yet, empowers the Board to take legal proceedings in cases of general importance. I daresay the Solicitor-General will have something to say about that and will be able to estimate what the fees for these legal procedings of unknown dimensions are. With any luck some of them will come his way. But that is no reason why we should pass the Financial Resolution without further explanations on the point. Either the words refer to these mysterious legal proceedings or to the possible payment of all sorts and conditions of men who will be incommoded by the activities of the council. Therefore my hon. Friend is right in saying it is most improbable that £20,000 will be anything like enough. I take it that paragraph (b) refers to the statistical department that will have to be set up.
I am sorry to have to give all these explanations but I am doing my best to interpret the Bill for the First Lord, who did not do it for us. It is not provided in the Bill, but it will obviously be necessary, because, though the memorandum says the expenditure will depend upon the scope and area of the inquiries, if the Board of Trade, on the recommendation of the council, publishes an Order fixing the price of certain commodities for a certain period there will have to be some sort of arrangement for constantly keeping the prices in review. The statistical department will have to be functioning all the time while the main council switches off bread and goes on to, say, milk. Somebody has
to be left behind in the office to keep their eyes on bread all the time. Therefore, it is clear that there is to be some kind of other expenditure at the Board of Trade in the nature of a statistical department. The upshot of that is that you cannot do all that monument of completely useless work and exertion, employing anything up to 49 members of the council with their subsidiaries, plus an unknown number of accountants, secretaries, deputy secretaries, and so on, for £20,000. I see, incidentally, that that figure is supported by the Lord Advocate: I had not noticed it before.
That £20,000 is absolutely valueless as an estimate, but, assuming that it was absolutely correct in every particular and that that was the last penny which the Consumers' Council would cost the taxpayer, is this the time for this Committee to embark on the expenditure of even an extra £20,000? That is the fundamental question. The First Lord of the Admiralty had nothing to do with the Budget as we were kept busy upstairs. It was only by reading the OFFICIAL REPORT and by rumour that we knew anything about what was going on, but it was brought to us as a general idea that the Budget was going to balance with something like £120,000 to the good. Since then supplementary Estimates to the tune of £500,000 have been presented to the House, so that the Budget is out by £400,000 before we begin to deal with this expenditure. [HON MEMBERS: "No, no!"] It is no good hon. Members saying "No, no" in the face of the fact that these supplementary Estimates have already been presented and that the deficit is already staring us in the face. Why then should we go out of our way to-night to pass this Financial Resolution, which is not going to be a mere £20,000? I doubt if £200,000 will cover all its activities.
It is all very well for the First Lord to scoff, but he knows, from his experience in the Co-operative Movement, how a little thing grows to be a big thing. When it gets too big, the "divvies" begin to go down and the people have to be thrown out of work, because they cannot afford to pay them the wages which they could pay them when they were small concerns. That is
what may happen to the council. They may well be able to pay good wages to themselves, their secretaries, accountants, deputy secretaries and so on, but when it grows, then, like the Co-operative Movement, the time will come when the House will have to say that it cannot afford it and that the salaries of these people will have to be cut down like the wages of those poor people in the Cooperative Movement were cut. The result, both with the Consumers' Council and with the Co-operative Movement, will be that the last stage will be worse than the first.
It is fantastic that we should be asked to set the seal of the approval of this Committee to such a proposal. We cannot deal with the Bill to-night, but I might say that it is a very poor Bill and will never work, because of the financial Clause, Clause 7, which is founded on this Resolution, being embodied in it. I would appeal to the First Lord to use a little of the common sense, which other people say he has got, not to force this Resolution through at this hour of the night without giving us more information than he has done so far as to its possible effect on the taxpayer.

Mr. ALEXANDER: There is always this to be said for the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) that, if he does not convey any important point in his speech, he at least is amusing. The House forgives much to hon. Members when they are amusing. He has said very little in his long address to us, but he has been interesting to us, because he has been amusing. Now, as to the delay in introducing the Resolution to the House, I am sure he will recognise that that is one of the matters for which I am not responsible. It is a question of arranging the business of the House, and, although it has been on the Paper for some time, it has not been possible, because of the other business which has had to be dealt with from day to day and which has to be arranged in consultation with the other parties, to take it at an earlier date. However, this is soon enough for our purpose in order to enable the Bill to be passed through Committee stage and to come before the House at a later stage for enactment. So far as the speech of the hon. and gallant Member
is concerned, he really has not covered any other points except those which have been put to us by previous speakers.
I shall try to deal, as clearly and faithfully as I can, with the points put to the Committee. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) asked whether these payments to the members of the Consumers' Council would be necessary at all. I would be very pleased if they were unnecessary, and, if we could get, for the kind of work that is to be done, people of the right capacity and with the right time available, without having to make any remuneration to them at all. He was right in saying that there has always been a large number of public-spirited people willing to give their time and service to the State. I am quite sure that, if it is possible to get the right type of person to do the duties on the council to be set up, then the Government will avail themselves of their services. But, in view of the nature of the work to be done, the Government thought it advisable that at least the House should give it the proper power to pay the chairman or such other members of the council as may be necessary in order to secure that the work is carried out.
The hon. Member for Colchester referred to the question of subsistence and travelling allowances. What I have said before on the other point really covers that, but I should say that payments by the Board under the Resolution will cover not only the travelling and subsistence allowances to members of the council, but will also provide for such expenditure on witnesses as may be necessary. That was a point raised by the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell). The hon. Member for West Bristol asked on what scale the chairman and the members of the council would be paid. I am very sorry, but I am unable to answer that question categorically to-night, and I must leave that to the head of the Department concerned, who will have the duty of administering this Bill and who will make what decisions are necessary when he sets up the council. He will decide what salaries, if any, are necessary.

Mr. CULVERWELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that I mentioned the chairman of the Coal Commission as an example of the kind of
salary that might be necessary? Surely he has some idea of the kind of scale on which they will be paid.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am aware that the hon. Member has mentioned that case, the circumstances of which were debated fully in the House. I shall not go into it again to-night, because I should be out of order. I am certain, however, that the duties of the chairman of the Coal Commission and of the chairman of the Consumers' Council cannot be regarded as analogous. I am certainly not prepared to-night to tie in advance the hands of the Minister as to what the actual rate of remuneration will be. The same answer applies to the question as to whether or not these appointments are to be a full-time job.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Are they?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I cannot say whether or not all the Consumers' Council will, or will not, be full-time. I am not prepared to tie the Minister's hands. There is another point to which I ought to refer. It is the question of the legal costs of prosecutions. Some hon. Members seem to think that in this estimate of £20,000 no account has been taken of possible costs of prosecutions instituted by the Board of Trade. On the other hand, the Member for West Bristol and other Members who have been sitting on the Committee week after week, will know that a large part of the enforcement of any Order will be in the hands of the local authorities. Any costs which will have to be borne by the Board of Trade will be in important prosecutions, and any general enforcement of the Orders will be undertaken by the local authorities under Clause 6 of the Bill. The total figure of £20,000 mentioned has taken into account any allowance which may be necessary, as far as can be ascertained, for the costs of legal prosecutions which may be entered into by the Board of Trade. The hon. and gallant Member for Harrow (Major Salmon) and the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) asked for an indication of what is covered by the £20,000. The point was answered by the President of the Board of Trade in the case of the Financial Resolution introduced on the previous Bill. I will repeat what is to
be covered by the £20,000. It will cover salaries of the additional staff of the Board of Trade which has necessarily to be employed. It will cover what necessary salaries have to be paid, if any, or remuneration to be paid to the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman or Members of the Council. It will cover expert accountancy, assistance, and statistics. It will cover the cost of Board of Trade prosecutions and the payment of witnesses. I want to reassure the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow that it will also cover payment of rent for accommodation. I will repeat what the Prime Minister said at the opening of the debate on the Financial Resolution of the previous Bill. He said that this is not a token vote. It is an estimate as to what the natural expenditure is likely to be, based as far as the Department can at present base it, upon a careful examination of what is likely to be expended.
Hon. Members opposite ask me to accept an Amendment which would limit definitely the expenditure to £20,000. As the Amendment appeals, it would limit the expenditure to £20,000 for the whole operation of the Act. I take it that what they mean is that expenditure should be limited to £20,000 per annum. Even that could not be accepted. I am not able to put in a figure of that kind. I can only give an assurance to the Committee that it is not anticipated that the sum of £20,000 will be exceeded, but it would be obviously wrong for me to limit the amount and afterwards sterilise the work of the Council if some extension of it was really needed. It would be futile to have to come back to the House of Commons and discuss the whole question all over again if we wanted £500 or £1,000 more in a certain year for the necessary work of the Council. [Interruption.] I hope I have given a sufficient answer to the points and that hon. Members opposite will not again charge me with discourtesy.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has given a full and entertaining speech. It was almost as entertaining as the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). It was the most extraordinary speech I have ever heard delivered in support of a Financial Resolution. I am not surprised that the Financial
Secretary to the Treasury has taken flight; and the Lord Advocate, I am informed, has gone to Scotland in search of a brief to prosecute the miners. Possibly that will be charged to the Coal Consumers' Council; I do not know. Why have we this Financial Resolution at all? The object of a Financial Resolution is to inform the House as to what is the expenditure which is going to be incurred, and obtain authority from the House to spend up to a certain amount. That is why this House laid down this financial procedure. That is why a Government is not allowed to proceed with the financial Clauses of a Bill until it has received the authority of the Committee of Ways and Means to proceed up to a certain amount. I know this is a, very silly and futile Bill. [Interruption.] An hon. Member who sits for Sheffield informed us to-day that the Bill is all eyewash; that nobody would try to fix prices at all. He is the only Socialist Member who spoke on the Bill.

Mrs. MANNING: No.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The bon. Lady did intervene upon skirts and women. On the Report stage of the Bill I hope the hon. Member will intervene again, because the case of fixing the standard price of skirts is one of the matters in the Bill. The only member who has directed his attention to what I may call the operative part of the Bill says that it is going to be quite futile. I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary is here now. This is his resolution and, if he had been in the House, he would have seen how the First Lord of the Admiralty has been making away with the money he has got from the Treasury. All we have had with certainty from the First Lord of the Admiralty is that the only thing he knows is that this Bill has to be got through by the winter in order that we may wish traders a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. The First Lord of the Admiralty says that it is not anticipated that the expenditure will exceed £20,000. That is not what the President of the Board of Trade told us. I think he might be here, although I do not want to press him unduly.
It is not quite fair to the First Lord of the Admiralty that he should have to deputise for the President of the Board
of Trade and get a Bill through which he does not like and which, with all respect to his abilities, he does not understand. He has said to-night that he will not tie the hands of the Board of Trade. What is the object of a Financial Resolution in the House of Commons except to tie the hands of Ministers? The First Lord has said that he does not know whether the President of the Board of Trade is going to pay salaries to the seven men and women on the Council or not. Then we ought to have the President here to tell us what he is going to do. There are seven members of the Council. Why seven? Perhaps because there were seven sleepers of Ephesus. [Interruption.]
The President said in an earlier debate that they had made a most careful estimate of how much money was going to be spent. We ask what it is going to be spent on. First, there are a few salaries for people in the Board of Trade, but the big thing is whether you are going to pay salaries to the seven Commissioners—the Chairman and the Deputy-Chairman and the three men and the two women. It was only accidentally that we learned, while the Bill was passing through Committee, that this Council could increase and multiply. [Interruption.] I should really like a sterilization Clause in the Bill. That would raise no moral issue. People of all shades of religious and eugenic opinion might join in putting some birth control on this abortion. If I had had my way, it would never have been conceived. [Interruption.] I must not accept the invitation of the hon. Lady opposite to go further into this matter of obstetric discussion. I am addressing myself to the Financial Secretary. I know he was not allowed to take part in the Budget, but he ought to take part in this Bill. Can he not take part in this discussion? He is said to have made a careful estimate; how can a careful estimate have been made, when the First Lord says that he does not know at this moment whether salaries are to be paid or not? We do not know whether they are to be full-time or half-time, whether they will be on the dole, or whether they will be on full pay.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The right hon. Gentleman has had great experience of administration and in dealing with pro-
visional estimates. It is necessary, in dealing with a piece of work like this, to have your estimate framed to provide for contingencies. It might be necessary to pay members of the council. The estimate prepared in a Financial Memorandum had been most carefully scrutinised.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We have now to consider the question whether you are going to regard a payment of the whole of the executive officers of an undertaking as a contingency or not. If this is a contingency, and if the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the finances of the co-operative societies or the finances of this country, then I shudder for the success of both of them. Of course, you make clear in the estimates what expenses you are going to incur. Of course, salaries are not a contingency. The First Lord's salary is not set down in the Estimates as a contingency. It is a fixed salary; he knows very well whether or not he is going to draw that salary. The contingency may be whether the Cabinet will allow that cut in salaries which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adumbrated.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The right hon. Gentleman knows when he introduced the procedure under the Merchandise Marks Act that he did not know what the cost was going to be.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am glad of that intervention. When I came to the House with the Merchandise Marks Bill, I said I was going to pay salaries to the throe people who were employed.

I think I gave an estimate of exactly what I was going to pay

Mr. ALEXANDER: Rates per sitting?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I wish the First Lord would inform himself on these matters. It was not a question of rates per sitting. I said I was going to pay a fixed salary to the Chairman. I gave him £1,200 a year and £1,000 to the other two members.
It is quite true that on the agricultural side there was a proposal, where the work was likely to be less arduous, that the people should be paid so much a day for every day that they sat. But it was made perfectly plain to the House of Commons, when authority was asked, that they would be paid and an indication was given of what the salaries would be. To-day we have had no such information. In future, if business is going to be conducted like this, we had much better leave the Financial Secretary's name out of it, and leave out any fantastic estimates, and say to the country that here is a Socialist Government, in spite of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's warnings, going out to seek where they can waste money, although they cannot say how and where they are going to waste it.

Mr. ALEXANDER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 76.

Division No. 449.]
AYES.
[1.2 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Gill, T. H.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Charleton, H. C.
Gossling, A. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Chater, Daniel
Gould, F.


Alpass, J. H.
Church, Major A. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Ammon, Charles George
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gray, Milner


Angell, Sir Norman
Compton, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Arnott, John
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Aske, Sir Robert
Daggar, George
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dalton, Hugh
Grundy, Thomas W.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Barr, James
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Dukes, C.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Duncan, Charles
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Benson, G.
Ede, James Chuter
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Bowen, J. W.
Edmunds, J. E.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)


Brothers, M.
Egan, W. H.
Haycock, A. W.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Elmley, Viscount
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Freeman, Peter
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Brown W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Buchanan, G.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Hicks, Ernest George


Burgess, F. G.
Gibbins, Joseph
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Millar, J. D.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Hoffman, P. C.
Mills, J. E.
Shillaker, J. F.


Hollins, A.
Milner, Major J.
Simmons, C. J.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Montague, Frederick
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Morley, Ralph
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Mort, D. L.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muff, G.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Kelly, W. T.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Murnin, Hugh
Sorensen, R.


Lang, Gordon
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Noel Baker, P. J.
Stephen, Campbell


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Strauss, G. R.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sullivan, J.


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lawrence, Susan
Palmer, E. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Perry, S. F.
Toole, Joseph


Leach, W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tout, W. J.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Potts, John S.
Townend, A. E.


Lees, J.
Price, M. P.
Vaughan, David


Leonard, W.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Viant, S. P.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wallace, H. W.


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Raynes, W. R.
Wellock, Wilfred


Logan, David Gilbert
Richards, R.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Longbottom, A. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Westwood, Joseph


Longden, F.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
White, H. G.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ritson, J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lunn, William
Romeril, H. G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rowson, Guy
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


McElwee, A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


McKinlay, A.
Sanders, W. S.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


McShane, John James
Sawyer, G. F.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Manning, E. L.
Scott, James
Winterton, G.E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Mansfield, W.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Marshall, Fred
Scurr, John
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Mathers, George
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)



Matters, L. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Maxton, James
Sherwood, G. H.
Mr. William Whiteley and Mr.


Messer, Fred
Shield, George William
Paling


Middleton, G.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Albery, Irving James
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Remer, John R.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Salmon, Major I.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bracken, B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Skelton, A. N.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smithers, Waldron


Butler, R. A.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Campbell, E. T.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Train, J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement


Cranborne, Viscount
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Womersley, W. J.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.



Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Sir George Bowyer.


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Penny, Sir George



Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question", put accordingly, and agreed to.

Major SALMON: I beg to move, in line 14, at the end, to add the words:
(c) Provided that the total expenditure incurred by the Board of Trade under the said Act shall not exceed twenty thousand pounds.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 79; Noes, 187.

Division No. 450.]
AYES.
[1.13 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Penny, Sir George


Albery, Irving James
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atholl, Duchess of
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Salmon, Major I.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bracken, B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Skelton, A. N.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smithers, Waldron


Butler, R. A.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomson, Sir F.


Campbell, E. T.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Train, J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
White, H. G.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Millar, J. D.
Womersley, W. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.



Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Captain Wallace.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Ht. Hon. Sir John
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gould, F.
McShane, John James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Manning, E. L.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gray, Milner
Mansfield, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Marshall, Fred


Alpass, J. H.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mathers, George


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Matters, L. W.


Angell, Sir Norman
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normonton)
Maxton, James


Arnott, John
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Messer, Fred


Aske, Sir Robert
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Middleton, G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mills, J. E.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Milner, Major J.


Barr, James
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Montague, Frederick


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Haycock, A. W.
Morley, Ralph


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Mort, D. L.


Benson, G.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Muff, G.


Bowen, J. W.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hicks, Ernest George
Murnin, Hugh


Brothers, M.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hoffman, P. C.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hollins, A.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Palmer, E. T.


Burgess, F. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Perry, S. F.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.


Chater, Daniel
Kelly, W. T.
Price, M. P.


Church, Major A. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lang, Gordon
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Raynes, W. R.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Richards, R.


Daggar, George
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dalton, Hugh
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrence, Susan
Ritson, J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Romerll, H. G.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Dukes, C.
Leach, W.
Rowson, Guy


Duncan, Charles
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Lees, J.
Sanders, W. S.


Ede, James Chuter
Leonard, W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scott, James


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Scrymgeour, E.


Egan, W. H.
Logan, David Gilbert
Scurr, John


Elmley, Viscount
Longbottom, A. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Freeman, Peter
Longden, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sherwood, G. H.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lunn, William
Shield, George William


Gibbins, Joseph
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shillaker, J. F.


Gill, T. H.
McElwee, A.
Simmons, C. J.


Gossling, A. G.
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)




Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Thurtle, Ernest
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Toole, Joseph
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Tout, W. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Townend, A. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sorensen, R.
Vaughan, David
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Viant, S. P.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Stephen, Campbell
Wallace, H. W.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Strauss, G. R.
Wellock, Wilfred
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Sullivan, J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)



Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Westwood, Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. Paling

Main Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 68.

Division No. 451.]
AYES.
[1.24 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Perry, S. F.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Haycock, A. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Potts, John S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Price, M. P.


Alpass, J. H.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Ammon, Charles George
Hicks, Ernest George
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Angell, Sir Norman
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Raynes, W. R.


Arnott, John
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richards, R.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hoffman, P. C.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hollins, A.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Barr, James
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Ritson, J.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Romeril, H. G.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rowson, Guy


Benson, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bowen, J. W.
Kelly, W. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Sawyer, G. F.


Brothers, M.
Lang, Gordon
Scott, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Scrymgeour, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Scurr, John


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Buchanan, G.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Burgess, F. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Sherwood, G. H.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shield, George William


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Charleton, H. C.
Leach, W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Chater, Daniel
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Simmons, C. J.


Church, Major A. G.
Lees, J.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Leonard, W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Compton, Joseph
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Daggar, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Dalton, Hugh
Longbottom, A. W.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Longden, F.
Sorensen, R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lunn, William
Stephen, Campbell


Dukes, C.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Strauss, G. R.


Duncan, Charles
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sullivan, J.


Ede, James Chuter
McElwee, A.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Edmunds, J. E.
McKinlay, A.
Thurtle, Ernest


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McShane, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Egan, W. H.
Manning, E. L.
Toole, Joseph


Elmley, Viscount
Mansfield, W.
Tout, W. J.


Freeman, Peter
Marshall, Fred
Townend, A. E.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Mathers, George
Vaughan, David


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Matters, L. W.
Viant, S. P.


Gibbins, Joseph
Maxton, James
Wallace, H. W.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Messer, Fred
Wellock, Wilfred


Gill, T. H.
Middleton, G.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Gossling, A. G.
Mills, J. E.
Westwood, Joseph


Gould, F.
Milner, Major J.
White, H. G.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Gray, Milner
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Morley, Ralph
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mort, D. L.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Muff, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Murnin, Hugh
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Palmer, E. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. Paling.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzonl, Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Albery, Irving James
Gibson. C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Sarmon, Major I.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Skelton, A. N.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Bracken, B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Thomson, Sir F.


Butler, R. A.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Campbell, E. T.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Train, J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cranborne, Viscount
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Warrender, Sir Victor


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Womersley, W. J.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)



Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Penny, Sir George
Captain Margesson and Captain


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wallace.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SMALL LANDHOLDERS AND AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered".—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Sir JOHN GILMOUR: I desire to enter a protest against taking this business of serious importance to Scotland at this hour. We have in this House of Commons naturally sometimes to sit up on public business. There are occasions when the action of the Government can be justified, but in this case we are being asked to take Amendments of material moment to the agricultural interests in Scotland at a late hour and with scant notice. Let me say this quite frankly to the House, that this list of Amendments has been on the paper for some time, but there was no warning given to the Opposition until to-day that they would be taken at this time. No single effort was made by the Scottish Office from the point of view of courtesy, or otherwise, to inform Scottish Members that they would be asked to take these Amendments at this time. This House has been occupied in the past few days with an internecine quarrel. The time of the House has been taken up, and abused, by discussions on matters which might well have been settled in private in Committee upstairs.
I emphatically protest against this treatment of Scottish affairs. This is a Bill upon which the Scottish Standing Committee was asked to consider matters of great importance. It occupied the Scottish Committee for a considerable time. It raised questions of importance to agriculture, and material matters from the legal standpoint. I observe that the Lord Advocate is not here. We have not the advantage or disadvantage of the right hon. Gentleman's presence. I think it is not only discourteous to the Opposition; it is far more discourteous to Scottish interests that we should be asked to take this matter at this time.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I think that the House will agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for the Pollok Division (Sir J. Gilmour) that on most occasions it is inadvisable to take issues of importance of this kind at this hour of the night. But one has to consider when one remembers this Scottish Bill that the issues have been thrashed out and that they are clear cut. We have discussed them as Scottish Members in Standing Committee upstairs on more than one occasion, and there is not a single Scottish Member who does not know what he has to decide to-night. Although there are many other occasions on which I would willingly join in the protest against Scottish business being taken at this hour of the night, on this occasion, when Scotland has been waiting for amendments to the Land Act which will be of great benefit
to the people of Scotland, I welcome the desire which I see on the part of the Government to force this Measure through. Accordingly, much as I regret that discussion should take place at this hour of the night, I welcome it because, speaking on behalf of the party with which I am associated, we believe that this is a Measure which will be of great good to the people of Scotland.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: I would like to point out to the Government that it is perfectly clear to us on this side of the House [Interruption] that these Amendments will go back to the Lords again. There is only one week in which they can come back here, and until the Recess is over, this matter cannot be dealt with. It appears that the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill and the Marketing Bill are regarded by the Government as of more importance than this Bill; therefore it will be put behind those Bills. There is not the slightest chance of this Bill becoming law before the recess. We might discuss this Bill thoroughly when we come back. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Boss and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) says that we have discussed this question fully before. I quite admit that, but I hope some of the other Members take an interest in Scottish matters, and they ought really to have a chance to see what the point is. It is quite clear, when we come to these matters, that English Members do not understand them. If they were explained they would see that we have very good grounds for objecting, and that, therefore, these points should be put to the other side.

Mr. HANNON: I desire to associate myself with the protest of my right hon. Friend, the Member for the Pollok Division (Sir J. Gilmour), against this Measure being taken at this hour of the night. It is of very little use to tell the House that Scottish Members have had an opportunity of adequately discussing the whole of this Measure. Surely, English Members of Parliament are entitled to know something about this Bill, because the experience of this House is that, although Scottish Members may meet in Standing Committee upstairs to discuss all the
Measures affecting Scotland, England has to foot the bill. I think that Members of this House representing English constituencies are entitled to know something of the contents of this Bill. I hope that English and Northern Irish Members will join in protest against Scottish Members carrying through the House of Commons a Measure in this way. Scottish Members have been bamboozling this House for generations. I submit that the time has come when the worm will turn. [Interruption.] I am in the capacity of the worm at this moment. We are tired in this House of the Scottish Standing Committee carrying Bills and of the English Members knowing nothing about the purposes or ultimate results of these Bills. I say that it is a monstrous thing at this hour of the night to force through a Bill of this kind. The English taxpayer will have to foot the Bill in any case.

Mr. BRACKEN: The typical appeal of the Member for Central Aberdeenshire (Mr. R. W. Smith) has struck a chord in my heart. There is a very large principle at stake in this matter. I must protest against the passing of these great omnibus Bills through the House at a quarter to two in the morning. It may be that this is a very excellent measure, and I have no doubt that an argument can be made in favour of it, but really it is monstrous for Scottish Members to try to get this Bill through at this time. It is a principle of very great importance. I listened to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). I see he is speaking to an hon. Member beside him—

Mr. MACPHERSON: I was really drawing my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that this Bill destroys bracken.

Mr. BRACKEN: Why should I be destroyed without discussion? We all know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman spent his evening, instead of defending his country's interests, in preparing this puerile joke. This is a matter of very great importance. Here is the Liberal party, or rather what was the Liberal party. They have come down in support of this extraordinary Measure,
which is a conglomeration of ideas marshalled together by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and they are prepared to pass it through without the slightest discussion. The House of Commons has not been created to pass through the Measures of the Scottish Standing Committee. On the contrary, it is its duty to examine into them very closely. We know quite well that Scottish Members, who are not members of the Government, are quite willing to spend the largest sums of public money in public works which may be developed in Scotland. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says there is no money in this Bill. I agree that they will not sit there much longer, as they have betrayed their responsibilities. This debate has absolutely proved to us who are English Members that home rule for Scotland is urgent.

Mr. SPEAKER: That question is certainly not before us now.

Mr. BRACKEN: I was putting it in a rhetorical fashion because I was anxious to relieve you, Sir, from the onerous duty of sitting at a late hour and also to protest against the action of the Government. The Secretary of State for Scotland will not answer questions, and the Under-Secretary of State sits mute beside him. I will not say anything about the Lord Advocate. This is a matter which affects the public purse, and we all know that the public purse is filled by Englishmen and not by Scotsmen.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: I want to put a question to you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) talks about wasting the public purse. Are we not wasting time discussing this matter? Has not this Bill been before the House and obtained its Third Reading? We are not discussing the Bill at all; we are discussing the Lords Amendments. Is it not time we put an end to this farce?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: As I am almost the only English Member sitting for an English constituency—except one, who is a Liberal and did not attend very much—who sat through practically every word of the Scottish Committee upstairs, I think I might, perhaps, at any rate on this occasion, be able to tell English Members, especially the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), that they are absolutely right and justified in what
they have said regarding this Bill. There is no doubt whatever that the Bill is one that is taking an unfair amount—

Mr. SPEAKER: That may be true, but that is not the Question before the House. The Question is whether the House should consider the Lords Amendments.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I was using this point as an illustration as to why these Members should know exactly what there was in the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot introduce that as an illustration.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I will give other reasons, then, why we should not take these Amendments now. There are very complicated legal points and we have no person in the House at the present moment with any knowledge whatever of those legal complications. It is almost impossible to tell what is the particular meaning of any single one of those Amendments. Every single one of them, for practical purposes, is very complicated from a legal point of view. I must say that nothing amazed me more in the whole of my Parliamentary experience than the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). He has always represented himself as a gallant fighting Liberal Member of Parliament; yet here he comes down and cowers at the feet of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and says to him, "I will do anything for you." Really, it is not a fitting thing that a so-called leader of the Liberal party, a man who is very highly esteemed in Scotland, should come down here at this time of night and make that sort of excuse. The very fact of his making that excuse shows that we ought not to deal with this Measure now. The right hon. Gentleman himself might give us some legal advice on this matter, but he has shown his incompetence. As my hon. friends on this side of the House have said, this is a horrible exhibition, and nothing gives me a stronger argument for voting against this Motion.
There are other reasons that I could give. It is a Bill that is complicated and affects a very large number of people. It has not had a great deal of discussion at times when attendance was easy. It has been discussed in a normal sort of way, but it has never had that
sort of attention that the House of Commons should give to it. This is probably the largest number of Members that has been present at any discussion on the Bill. I do ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is always very reasonable when I approach him, that he should adjourn this matter. It would be very much in the interests of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman himself appealed again and again to us to help him to get his Bill forward, and I did the best that I possibly could. Surely, he might meet us now. It would be easy to take this Bill the first thing on Friday, and it could be discussed in the light of day instead of at these dismal hours. I apologise for taking up the time of the House, but, as I see that the Secretary for Scotland is thinking of getting up, I do appeal to him to accept this suggestion of ours and not force the Bill through.

Mr. J. JONES: I have not troubled the House much. [Interruption.] English Members have already taken

some part in this Debate. Ever since Scottish matters have been under discussion we have had an understanding that we who represent English constituencies would not interfere. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We had an understanding among ourselves. Of course, you do not keep honourable understandings. I happen to represent an English constituency with a Welsh name. I mean my own name. [Interruption.] It is not funny; it is an accident. I have a Scottish grandfather on my mother's side, so I have a right to say something about matters of this character. My. hon. Friends opposite are camouflaging the situation. This is not a question of the method of procedure of the House of Commons in dealing with a matter relating to Scotland. They are backing up the right of the House of Lords to say what we must do in the House of Commons

Question put, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

The House divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 39.

Division No. 452.]
AYES.
[1.58 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
McElwee, A.


Alpass, J. H.
Grundy, Thomas W.
McKinlay, A.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Arnott, John
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McShane, John James


Aske, Sir Robert
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Manning, E. L.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mansfield, W.


Barr, James
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Marshall, Fred


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mathers, George


Benson, G.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Matters, L. W.


Bowen, J. W.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Maxton, James


Broad, Francis Alfred
Haycock, A. W.
Messer, Fred


Brothers, M.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Millar, J. D.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mills, J. E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Montague, Frederick


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hoffman, P. C.
Morley, Ralph


Buchanan, G.
Hollins, A.
Mort, D. L.


Burgess, F. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Murnin, Hugh


Calne, Hall, Derwent
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Church, Major A. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kelly, W. T.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Paling, Wilfrid


Daggar, George
Lang, Gordon
Palmer, E. T.


Dalton, Hugh
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Potts, John S.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawrence, Susan
Price, M. P.


Duncan, Charles
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Ede, James Chuter
Leach, W.
Raynes, W. R.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lees, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Leonard, W.
Romeril, H. G.


Elmley, Viscount
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rowson, Guy


Gibbins, Joseph
Logan, David Gilbert
Sanders, W. S.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Gill, T. H.
Longden, F.
Scott, James


Gossling, A. G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Scurr, John


Gray, Milner
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sherwood, G. H.


Shield, George William
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shillaker, J. F.
Townend, A. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Simmons, C. J.
Vaughan, David
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Viant, S. P.
Wilson, R J. (Jarrow)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wellock, Wilfred
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Westwood, Joseph
Young, R. S, (Islington, North)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
White, H. G.



Sorensen, R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stephen, Campbell
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Charleton.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Atholl, Duchess of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Skelton, A. N.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Smithers, Waldron


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Thomson, Sir F.


Bracken, B.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Train, J.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Butler, R. A.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Campbell, E. T.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)



Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dalkeith, Earl of
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Captain Margesson and Sir George Penny.


Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment of provisions as to resumption of holdings.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 7, leave out Sub-section (1).

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I would like to give effect to the desire of hon. Members that I should take up as little time as possible in discussing these Amendments, which were all fully debated, not only in the House, but in the Committee upstairs. The issues that are before us are very clear, and have already been put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). Many other hon. Members took part in the very protracted sittings upstairs and are well aware that those issues have been discussed in all their bearings, and that they are well understood by all Scottish Members. I quite agree with those hon. Members who have been expressing a desire that we should spend as short a time as we possibly can on this Bill.

Sir FREDERICK THOMSON: This Amendment raises a very important point, and I do not at all agree with what the Secretary of State for Scotland
has said. It is most unfortunate that we should be discussing it at this hour, but it is a question that needs full and free discussion. I can well imagine what hon. Gentlemen opposite would have said to us if we had been sitting on those benches and had suggested taking the Bill in this way. I can imagine what the Lord Privy Seal would have said, with great force and vigour, and what attacks would have been made on the Government, if we had dared to entertain taking Scottish business in the middle of the night. The right hon. Gentleman who has kept us up so late may desire to go to bed. We do not at all agree, because of the importance of the issue. The Lords Amendment has this effect. It leaves out Sub-section (1) of Clause 8, which provides that occupation by a landlord for the purpose of residing on his estate,
shall not he a reasonable purpose in respect of which the Land Court may authorise resumption by the landlord of a holding.
The Land Court is categorically informed that, in no circumstances is a landlord who wishes to resume possession of his holding for the purposes of residence, to be allowed to get possession. We think that that is an unjustifiable step, and we suggest that the law should be restored to what it was under Section 2 of the Crofters Act of 1886 until that Section was modified by Section 19 of the Act of 1911. The situation under
the Crofters Act is that the Land Court have power to consider any request that may be put forward by a landlord who desires to get occupation of his holding for personal residence thereon, it being his only landed estate, and if they think that it is reasonable and that he shows that it will be for the good of the holding or the estate, they are authorised to grant resumption. We think that that is reasonable and right, and we want to trust that function to the Land Court. The 1911 Act, Section 19, provided that occupation by a landlord for the purpose of personal residence of his holding was to be deemed to be a reasonable purpose for which he could get immediate occupation. The Land Court had no discretion in the matter. They were categorically told that, if somebody came forward and desired occupation of his holding, he was to get it. The Government have gone too far over to the other side and have laid down the law that the Land Court shall have no discretion whatever, and that it shall never be a reasonable purpose for which a man can get possession of his holding that he wishes to live upon it.
We are told that there is a grievance here, that in a number of cases the crofter has been deprived of his holding by someone coming from a neighbouring town who has bought the holding and desires to use it as a place of week-end residence. For the whole twenty years since the Act of 1911 was passed only 153 cases, in which resumption has been allowed to the owner for the purpose of personal residence thereon, have occurred. Of these, 120 took place in some six or seven years after the war. In the last few years there has hardly been a case. There were six cases in 1927, eight in 1928, three in 1929, and last year there were only two cases. It is wrong to lay down the law definitely that in no circumstances shall a man who has purchased a croft be entitled to get possession of it to live upon it. In many cases it is to the good of the holding that that shall be done. There are cases of the winding up of a trust estate, cases where it may be necessary to Bell the holding to pay off Death Duties, cases where in the national interest it is not desirable that the holding should remain in an impoverished
estate and in such circumstances it should be sold. These are matters for the highly skilled persons who form the Land Court.
When the Bill came before the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) expressed the view that this question of resumption for personal residence was a matter for the Land Court, and he asked the Government if they had no confidence in the Land Court, saying that it was reasonable that, if a man owns a croft, he should have an opportunity of claiming it. The Land Court, however, under this Bill are to have no say and no discretion in the matter. Those who represent the Government in another place were obliged to say how reasonable was the case put to them. An Amendment proposed there was withdrawn in order to see if a compromise could be arrived at. Those representing the Government frankly admitted that there was much to be said for the point of view that it was a matter that ought to be left to the discretion of the Land Court. However, no compromise was found to be possible, because the Government held positively to their view that the matter should not be left to the discretion of the Land Court, but that the Land Court should be told outright that this question of personal occupation by the landlord was not one with which they could deal. The only reason the Government could give was that there were cases where a week-ender bought a croft and got possession of it without any serious intention of cultivating it. It is true that such cases may have been protected under the 1911 Act, because under that Act the Land Court have no discretion, but are bound to grant resumption for personal residence. That made the law what it is now.
We are not opposing everything, and we agree that there should be an Amendment of Section 19 of the Act of 1911. We say that the matter should be left to the Land Court, as in their hands it is safe. It is very arbitrary that it should be laid down imperatively in a Statute that, although the Land Court may think a good case has been made, in no circumstances whatever is a man who has purchased an estate to be allowed to get possession of it. I hope that the Liberal party will support the
very reasonable suggestion which I am making. When the Bill was in Committee, they were prepared to accept it as a compromise. It may be that they prefer the proposal of the Government, but we are asking here something which is entirely reasonable, that the Land Court, which has the confidence of the public in Scotland, should be allowed to consider each case that comes before them. The cases which have come before them on the ground of personal resumption are very few indeed. There may be cases, however, where it is desirable and right that the owner should get possession, and it is entirely a mistaken policy that we should pass this Sub-section of this clause and thereby deprive this Court of any discretion.

Mr. MACPHERSON: It is quite true to say that this Clause is one which has been discussed for many years in this House and more than one colleague of mine has introduced a Bill to mitigate an undoubted grievance. We, therefore, welcome the Clause as it stands. I would like, however, to draw attention to one or two statements made by the hon. Baronet who preceded me. He made an appeal that it should be left to the discretion of the Land Court. The very genesis of this Clause is that, because the whole matter has been left to the discretion of the Land Court—

Sir F. THOMSON: They are bound to grant resumption under the Act of 1911.

Mr. MACPHERSON: We are not dealing with the 1911 Act but with the Act which was the origin and foundation of security of tenure. The real gravamen of the complaint against the attitude of my hon. Friend who has just spoken, is this, that the resumption of holdings which began to take effect after the war was a blow at security of tenure.

Sir F. THOMSON: Under the 1911 Act there was no discretion.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I was saying that the resumption of holdings was a real blow to security of tenure. The reason why the Liberal party have been endeavouring for years to change that is to revive in the minds of the small farmers of Scotland the idea that they were entitled to full security in their holdings. The hon. Baronet went so far as to say
that in no case could a landlord resume his holding. That is not true. He has mistaken the facts of the case.

Sir F. THOMSON: Personal occupation.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Under the Act of 1886 there are very many reasons why a landlord would be entitled to resume his holding. As this Clause stands, it says that no landlord shall be entitled to say to a man that he shall be turned out because the new owner desires to live on the particular holding. Everybody felt it was unfair that, if the occupier was paying his rent regularly—with all his work and his family's work in the holding—he should be at the mercy of anything of that kind. This is a legitimate attempt to establish once again security of tenure. There is no reason in the wide world why a holding should not be resumed if it is for the good of the holding. That still stands.

Sir F. THOMSON: You cannot.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I stand subject to correction, but it is my view that, if it is for the good of the holding, or for any of the reasons named in the Act of 1886, holdings can be resumed. We say that the old reasons for resuming holdings stand as they were, except for the mere purpose of occupying or residing on the holding, it may be for week-ends. That is not a reason why holdings should be handed over to the proprietor.

Mr. SKELTON: I do not think that is a fair account of the situation, or of the situation which would arise if the Amendment were carried. The right hon. Gentleman said a holding could be resumed for any of the other causes except personal residence. I think that is a very dogmatic statement, and a very confused statement of the law, if this Clause is to be read with the Section of the previous Act. I should very much doubt if that statement of the law is correct. Neither of us is very expert. It is clearly a matter in which the view of one of the Law Officers of Scotland should be available to the House. I do not know the cause which prevents the Lord Advocate being here on a Bill so technical as this, nor do I wish to be as categorical an interpreter of the law as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross
and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). It seems to me to be a doubtful point. On the general merits of the Amendment, let the House make no mistake. You either give it to the Land Court to say whether a man who owns a holding is more suitable to cultivate it, or whether the tenant is more suitable than the owner. If the Amendment was agreed to, there would be no bias in favour of the owner or the tenant, as a class. Each case would be tried by the Land Court which is now as expert in dealing with this question as any tribunal could be. If this Subsection is omitted, it is left to the Land Court to decide. If the House refuses to accept this Amendment, it gives its approval to the perfectly fatuous proposal that it must be better for every holding to be cultivated by a man who does not own it than by a man who does.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Subject to good cultivation.

Mr. SKELTON: Cultivation must be intensely bad before you can call that proviso into operation. There is no reason why the House of Commons should come down in favour of cultivation by the tenant rather than by the owner. So far as evidence goes there is a steady increase of cultivation of land by owners in Scotland. It does seem to be the current mode, and the mode approved by agricultural Scotland. I see no reason why in the matter of small cultivation you should make it impossible, or very difficult, for the owner of a holding to cultivate his own land. It is on that ground that I think the previous situation was far preferable to the situation now to be adopted. No bias should be shown in this House either in favour of the owners of holdings or tenants. That matter should be left on the merits of each particular case. The action of the Government is a backward step in legislation. In the earlier stage of the matter the Land Court was forced to give the owner possession. I agree that was unsuitable. The present situation leaves it to the Land Court to decide which is the best course, and is better than the Clause to bar a man from cultivating the land he owns.

Mr. HANNON: I would ask, for the guidance of the House, whether, in a debate of this quality where highly
technical questions of law are concerned, it is not eminently desirable that a Law Officer of the Crown should be present. You will observe the difference of view between the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton). It is exceedingly difficult for English Members to follow the subtleties of Scottish law without someone being present to give us guidance.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. It is clearly not for me to decide who shall be present on the Ministerial bench.

Mr. HANNON: With great respect, for the purpose of conducing to the efficiency of the debate, is it not usual in this House to have some competent authority to determine law as it arises.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a question for me to decide.

Mr. HANNON: In that case, I wish to move, "That the debate be now adjourned."

Earl of DALKEITH: I should like to add my protest against the Government taking this Bill without notice, because there are internal dissensions in their own party. This may not be the most important Amendment which we have to discuss, but it is one in which the Government to redress what they think is a hardship are legislating in a way which inflicts greater hardship in another way. We have here two legal aspects, and I would like to have the opinion of one of the Law Officers of the Crown. Quite apart from the legal aspects, the compromise arrived at in another place is a very practical one and very fair to both sides. I do protest against the Government at this late stage in the Session spoiling what might be a fairly useful Bill. I think the House ought to know that this is the one proposal in the Bill which is really objected to by considered agricultural opinion in Scotland. If it is the case that these grievances do exist, then the Government are going entirely the wrong way to remedy them. The House should consider alternative proposals such as the encouragement of occupying ownership rather than the system that the Government are proposing. I think the Government might indi-
cate some ways in which they are prepared to meet us in the succeeding Clauses of greater importance.

Mr. SCOTT: I trust that the House will not be misled by the two speakers who have preceded me into considering the questions of occupying ownership or dual ownership. The point that has been raised is a very simple one. I must confess that I have some familiarity with the law in this matter. The Act that was passed in 1886 gave certain powers of resumption. In 1911 the scope of resumption was widened so as to give a man, who owned one holding and who said he wanted to go on living on it and working on it, the right to demand resumption. That right was reduced after the passing of the 1919 Act, and cases of resumption occurred, not in a few cases as the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir F. Thomson) suggested, but in hundreds of cases.

Mr. SKELTON: 164.

Mr. SCOTT: I challenge those figures. In the Orkneys and Shetland, in Banff and Aberdeen, there were hundreds of cases in which notice was given to the tenants either to buy their holdings or to leave. The holdings were bought over the heads of many of these small holders, and in the case of hundreds they were evicted. It was to prevent those evictions that the Clause was put in the Bill. I agree with the hon. Baronet that the Clause introduced in this Bill which I had the honour to introduce differs from the Clause that stands here, but this is a Government Clause, and we accept this Clause and are firmly of opinion that it is the correct way to deal with the matter and to give a direct negative to the powers of resumption which were given in the Act of 1919. Accordingly, we support the proposal of the Government.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): I respectfully suggest to the House that this matter has been fully discussed. The House has more than once expressed itself in favour of the decision taken by the Government. It has been discussed in Committee upstairs, and there again the Committee, by an overwhelming vote, supported the decision of the Government. We are debating the
attempt by another place to impose its will on this House after this House has given its decision. The noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Earl of Dalkeith) stated that agricultural opinion in Scotland was against the decision of the Government. May I suggest that it is the landlord's opinion that is against it. The smallholders, the National Farmers' Union, and others who represent agricultural opinion, are practically unanimously in favour of the Bill. The hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Sir F. Thomson) gave certain figures of cases that came before the Courts. They did mot deal with the innumerable cases in which people rather than face the expenditure were evicted from their holdings. In many cases it was simply a question of resumption for a better sale or for week-end parties. I think the House has fully discussed every aspect of the matter, and I would suggest that it should now come to a decision upon it.

Mr. SKELTON: Am I to understand that, as the law is at present, it will be possible for land owners to force smallholders out without the Land Court considering the matter at all?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I said that, if the House disagreed with the Lords Amendment, we would guarantee security to the tenants of smallholdings.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: The Labour party and the Liberal party consider that in these Debates we are out to support the landlords. Well, we only support them when we consider that right is in their favour. We are here seeking to safeguard the small man. May I point out that a person seeking resumption must prove that it is only land, and that it is not more than fifty acres or £50 in value. We say that it is very unfair for the man whose only holding it is that the Land Court is not to be allowed to take into account whether he ought to have it or not. That is the only point. I do not think that a great many of the hon. Members opposite understand this matter. It is a simple question whether the tenant is going to have the right or the owner, who is also a small man. We have had a most interesting explanation of the law from the Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Scott)—

Mr. SCOTT: I should like to say that I rose to explain the law from an intimate knowledge of the facts.

Mr. SMITH: I naturally assumed that was the Government's point of view, as the Liberal party are intimately connected with the Government. There have been a great deal of comings and goings between the hon. Member and the Government, and therefore it was only natural to assume that he was speaking for the Government. We are always told that this is to prevent eviction, on the ground of security of tenure. But, under the Act of 1886, if a man can prove, having bought his little piece of land, that he wants to erect buildings or dwellings on that bit of land, the court has to take into consideration the question. So that all he has to do is to say that he is going to put up buildings on that land. He can divide the land and he has to prove that he is going to put up buildings, and the court must take that into account.

CLAUSE 14.—(Option to statutory small tenant to become landholder.)

Lords Amendment: Leave out the Clause.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Clause 14, which their Lordships desire to omit, gives to every statutory small tenant a right, on giving notice to the landlord not less than a month prior to the expiry of the period of tenancy current at the commencement of the Act, to become a landholder. The Lords propose, as an alternative, a new Clause that option should not be given where the landlord is prepared to confer on the statutory small tenant the same right as the landholder has in the matter of compensation. The Lords proposal would, no doubt, concede to the statutory small tenant one advantage of the landholder's tenure, but it would leave the statutory small tenant who took advantage of this Clause in a different position from landholders in other matters. For example, they would have no power to assign their holdings, and their rights of redress would
be those of ordinary agricultural tenants. They would be entitled to an equitable, in lieu of a fair rent, and their security of tenure would depend on different provisions.

Sir F. THOMSON: I think it is a great pity that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not accept this Amendment, because while the Lords certainly proposed to leave out Clause 14, at the same time they put in a new Clause which gives an option to the statutory small tenant to become a landholder unless the landlord lodges with the Land Court an application to have it declared that the tenant and his statutory successors shall have the same rights to compensation for permanent improvements as if the tenant had been a landholder. This question was argued in Committee purely on compensation, and the new clause meets the points that were then raised. It is quite certain that the Government are not really very keen about this Clause. It was not in the original Bill, and there was no proposal in it to give the statutory small tenant the option to become a landholder. The hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Scott) wished to force all statutory small tenants to become landholders. The Lord Privy Seal moved Clause 14 when it came to Report, though he would not accept a Clause moved in Committee. He made a very powerful speech against the proposal, and showed clearly that there was no case for the statutory small tenant becoming a landholder, that it was even undesirable that he should have an option, that there had been no demand for the change, and that a considerable number of statutory small tenants had written to him, protesting against any change. Then he pointed out that if statutory small tenants availed themselves of the option and became landholders the State would inevitably be faced with demands for loans to put up new buildings and repair existing buildings. At the present moment, the buildings of statutory small tenants are kept up by the land owners. If the statutory small tenants become landholders, it is inevitable that demands will be made by them on the State to enable them to put up buildings and repair buildings. The Lord Privy Seal pointed out
how that would reduce the money available for new holdings. I therefore think that there is really no ease for objecting to what the Lords propose. They have gone very far in their desire to meet the point of view of the Commons. They have given an option, but have said that it shall not be exercised if the landlord puts the statutory small tenant in the same position as a landholder in respect of compensation. We object to the extension of the land holding tenure very strongly. The Nairne Committee—[Interruption.] I am inclined to mention that Committee more than certain other members are. They pointed out clearly what a failure the crofting system had been in the Lowlands.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. T. Johnston): You cannot extend the number of statutory small holdings. They are a fixed quantity at a diminishing point.

Sir F. THOMSON: I know who the statutory small tenants are. They are the people and the statutory successors of the people who in 1911 held holdings of not more than 50 acres or £50 in value and who had not provided the whole or the greater part of the permanent improvements. I know that their numbers cannot be extended and are declining. The Lord Privy Seal's figure was 2,000. The hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine put it at 17,000.

Mr. SCOTT: May I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the late Lord Advocate gave the figure of 20,000.

Sir F. THOMSON: There is a wide difference of opinion. There are certainly several thousands of the statutory small tenants. We say that to allow them to exercise the privilege of becoming landholders is not in the interests of Scottish agriculture. Take the case of the statutory small tenant, whose buildings belong to the landlord, and are kept up by the landlord. He applies to be, and becomes, a landholder. The buildings are not his; he has not paid for them, and the landlord is deprived of any power to interfere. It is an anomalous situation. By passing this subsection, if it is made much use of, you will be using State money for loans to holders who at present have their buildings kept up by their landlords.
Nobody knows that better than the Lord Privy Seal. He is no keener on this Clause than we are. We know that it is a compromise between him and the members of the Liberal party. When this matter was mooted in the House of Lords, the Noble Lords who represent the Government were unable to state any reasons against the very reasonable proposal which the Lords made. All they said was that this was a compromise on the top of a compromise: "There is the compromise with the Liberal party, and we cannot go any further. We do not pretend to go into the merits of the matter." We are suggesting that it is not desirable or wise to extend the land-holding system in Scotland. We think it is quite good enough, according to the best authorities who have gone most carefully into the matter. It is conclusively proved that it has been a mistake to attempt to extend the crofting system into the Lowlands. We are opposed to any further extension. The Government would be well advised to accept the Lords Amendment.

Major MCKENZIE WOOD: I am glad that the Government have declined to accept the Lords Amendment. It has to be remembered that these proposals are a compromise. An Amendment put down on behalf of the Liberal party would have gone considerably farther than this. We have accepted this as a compromise. I am sure that agricultural opinion in Scotland, at any rate among the tenants, will be in favour of it, and I hope the Government will refuse to go any farther. It is quite true that the arguments which were put forward in favour of this were mainly based on the question of compensation. That probably is the most important part, to the small tenant, but it does not by any means alter the question. There are other rights which a landholder enjoys which are at present denied to a statutory small tenant. The Secretary of State mentioned the right of assignment. There are other rights. There are rights of cultivation given to a landholder which are not given to a statutory small tenant. There are rights given to a landholder to go before the Land Court and possibly get his arrears of rent cancelled, which are not given to a statutory small tenant. There are rights with regard to loans, enjoyed by landholders at the present time, which are not enjoyed
by tenants. We say that there is no logical reason why these things should be enjoyed by a landholder and not by a statutory small tenant. If the Amendment which another place has suggested in respect of this were accepted, the statutory small tenant would be denied all these advantages, to which we think he has as good a right as a landholder.
I would point out, also, that the Lords Amendment does not go as far as the hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen (Sir F. Thomson) imagines, but proposes that the statutory small tenant should have rights in respect of compensation for permanent improvements, on renouncing the tenancy, or on being removed from the holding. That excludes altogether the rights of the tenant, or his successor or personal representative, if the tenant were to die. It is proposed that the rights of compensation of the statutory small tenant should be extinguished in the event of his dying. No mention is made of that at all. There are other rights which the statutory small tenant would be denied, and which I could enumerate, but I think the rights which I have already given are sufficient to show that the Government will be conferring a great boon upon the smallholders of Scotland if they refuse to have anything to do with the Amendment.

Mr. SKELTON: I am very reluctant to discuss matters of importance to Scottish agriculture at this hour of the morning, whether they take the form of a political compromise or not. I do not wish to go at full length into the very undesirable agricultural situation which would arise, if the unknown number of statutory small tenants were to turn themselves into small landholders. So far as I am concerned, it must be clearly understood that the opposition which I have to the proposal in Clause 14, and my preference for the proposal which has been made in another place, is one which has nothing to do with politics, but is entirely founded upon what I believe to be the best interest of Scottish agriculture. I am not alone in thinking that. The Debates which we had on the Scottish Committee on this Bill were very valuable. They revealed, in the person of the Lord Privy Seal, a knowledge and an interest in the subject that I welcome and recognise. He clearly realised the disadvantage of either forcing or persuading the statutory small
tenants to be crofters. I point this out, not because I wish to secure any party point against him, but because I think he was then on the right lines and that he had grasped what is a fundamental fact.
3 a.m.
Wherever you have dual ownership, you have a low standard of cultivation. That has been a commonplace with agriculturists in the British Isles for many years, so much a commonplace that in Ireland Mr. Gladstone, although he himself was the author of a statutory dual ownership there, made a last minute effort to get rid of it. That is why the Government resisted this Liberal Bill by which an unknown number of small tenants were to be forced into dual ownership, but then they foolishly gave an option to those small tenants to do so, thus giving them an option to do the thing they would not force them to do. In the debates in Committee it became clear to me and to most hon. Members on this side of the House that the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Scott), who made a number of speeches on this matter, had brought before the Committee a point of real substance. I am sorry we now have to deal with something so highly technical as these domestic differences of quantity between a statutory small tenant and a statutory landholder, but he made it clear to me that in certain circumstances the statutory small tenant was in danger of not getting full compensation for his own agricultural efforts.
That was, in my judgment, the only substantial point which the hon. and gallant Member who preceded me just now put forward. The substantial point was that there was some possible grievance and disadvantage with reference to compensation. That point is met by this new Clause proposed by another place to take the place of Clause 14. If we could, in a matter so important to the agriculture of the country, get out of the region of these pettyfogging political controversies and get down to the interests of the people cultivating the land, then the Government would itself accept this new Clause from another place. I welcome very much the fact that the other place has put its finger so accurately on the real grievance.
On these grounds, which I do not seek to elaborate, the Government would be well advised even now to reconsider the matter, and the Liberal party would be well advised to take their minds out of the atmosphere of political controversy, in which they so easily move, and get down to the real interest of the Scottish agriculturist. It is a gross thing, when you are dealing with a type of agriculturist in a small way, who is endeavouring by his own efforts to make his holding a success, that this House by these legislative provisions should try to induce him to change his tenure when the Government, which agrees to allow him to be thus induced, would not for a moment force this change upon him. It is a grave injustice to a class of men who cannot know, as this House does, the difficulties connected with dual ownership in all its forms. For these reasons, I regret extremely that the two Amendments of the other place relating to this matter have not been accepted.
The Secretary of State for Scotland is never tired of explaining the enormous benefits which he is giving to Scottish agriculture, although, like the Emperor's clothes in the fairy tale, no one can see he has got any. He is never tired of explaining how beneficial his reign has been. There is no topic of Scottish agriculture which he has not touched and which, having touched, he does not adorn. That description has a foundation of fact. All who have considered the topic consider we are going along an undesirable course. Why then do we not accept the Amendment which would meet the grievance.

Earl of DALKEITH: I would like the Government to make clear the exact position as to the numbers who are entitled to this conversion. There is great uncertainty in Scotland as to whether it concerns 2,000 or 20,000 or a far larger number of smallholdings. The Government when they are legislating on the matter ought to be able to give us an exact figure. I hope the Government will accept this particular Amendment, which, after all, is a very reasonable and fair proposal. The Lords Amendment gives an alternative which meets the point in a practical way and which makes the position quite satisfactory to the statutory small tenant. It is absolutely fair between the owner and tenant and leaves no grievance to the statutory small
tenant. The Government have made a mistake in legislating unfairly between the owner and tenant at this stage of the Bill. If there is any reason now why they do not agree with the Lords Amendments, the motive can only be a political one, that they are forced to accept the least the Liberal party will agree to in their sudden desire to extend the small landholder system of tenure.
Is it fair to hand over the control of equipment to the tenants who have not provided it. The equipment provided by the landlord, and belonging to the landlord, is now transferred to a person not the owner of the equipment. He has not paid for it. He will have complete control, and a right to change it as he pleases. The Government never answered the Committee whether it was fair to do this. They never replied to the point that it depreciated the value of the holding to the owner: I never suggested that agricultural opinion is opposed to certain definite Amendments. Certain Members say that this is only the opinion of the landlords, but there is much agricultural opinion in Scotland opposed to the policy adopted by the Government. There is not only the Committee already referred to, but the Chamber of Agriculture of Scotland who are very strongly opposed to the alteration in the system of tenancy advocated by the Government. Although Government supporters may laugh when I refer to the Scottish Chamber, it is a very excellent organisation. It is composed of people engaged in agriculture all over Scotland. I submit that it is very stupid that the Government should extend to the South of Scotland, on a larger scale, all the disadvantages of this system of landholders' tenancy, and I ask the Government to accept the Amendment proposed in another place.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: I would like to point out that exception was taken to our discussing this proposed Amendment. It was said that it was unnecessary to do so, because it was discussed so fully before. It appears from the debate very necessary that we should discuss it, else the House will come to a decision without understanding what the Amendment is. The Secretary of State for Scotland has made a short explanation. I hope that we shall have a reply to the hon. Member for Banffshire (Major Wood) as to what is the meaning of the Amendment. He does not read it in the same
way as the Secretary of State for Scotland. We shall want to hear exactly what the Amendment means, what it would do, and how it would deal with the situation in order to satisfy the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway.
Coming down to the question of this Clause, it seems that the House should really understand what took place. This Clause was not in the original Bill. It was proposed, first of all, by the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Scott). His form of Amendment proposed that statutory tenants were to be landholders. When that proposal was put forward by the Liberal party the Government was strongly opposed to it. The Lord Privy Seal, who was then Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, said that the reason why he could not accept the Liberal party's proposal was because they felt the Bill would be jeopardised in another place; that he knew that in another place the Amendment would not be accepted. What has happened now? Is the other place going to accept it now? He said:
Are we prepared to risk a struggle for a Clause which, as far as we can see, would handicap the Bill very gravely, and we could not carry it.
That is the statement of the Lord Privy Seal. Again he said:
We will take any steps that can be suggested as being likely to get over this difficulty, but as at present advised, if we push this through this morning and incorporate it in the Bill, we are taking a step which the Secretary of State, the Lord Advocate, and the Government believe will tend to wreck the Bill.
We are asking the House to take exactly the same view as the Lord Privy Seal advocated. He finished up his speech by saying:
We cannot accept the amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, 3rd February, 1931, cols. 272–4.]
The Government are asking us to accept practically the same Amendment to-night. It seems a very extraordinary way to deal with the matter. There are many good Clauses in the Bill. All that is tending to wreck the Bill is the action of the Liberal party, and only certain members of the Liberal party, who are pushing this forward at this time. The Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine said that compensation for improvements
was the one thing for which they pressed. He said:
The point I wish the Committee to concentrate on is that, if a holder has made any improvement, he is entitled to compensation.
He also said:
The tenant should be entitled to get compensation, for an improvement which he can prove he put on the holding."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, 3rd February, 1931, col. 265.]
On the second day he said:
I am going to repeat, and shall continue to repeat, the main question with regard to statutory small tenants.… If a small-holder has spent his capital and his labour in putting improvements on his holding, is it not just and right that he should get compensation for them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, 5th February, 1931, cols. 277–8.]
Then the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) said:
All that my friend the Member for Kincardine wants is that the tenant as well as the landlord should get compensation for permanent improvements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, 5th February, 1931, col. 291.]
That is different, and I fail to see why we should do something which the Government spokesman on the Committee said would jeopardise the Bill. That is why I ask the Government to accept the Amendment.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I have listened to the whole discussion, and there can be no doubt that the Government, in their wisdom, at the beginning decided that this Clause should not be in the Bill. It was merely a bit of log-rolling on the part of certain Members of the Liberal party to get it in, and the Government did it to save their faces and their majority upstairs. That is the kind of thing which is going on in relation to this Bill. It has been pointed out again and again that the Bill is a compromise on the whole. This Clause absolutely breaks the compromise, and there can be no doubt that the Government are only sticking to the Clause purely for the reason that it is trying to make trouble with another place. It does not care two hoots for the Clause.
The Government apparently do not know—for there are two forms of opinion—how many people will be affected. There is the official opinion that it will
affect about a couple of thousand of people, and there is the unofficial opinion of one of the legal Members below the Gangway that it will affect 20,000. Whether it is the Lloyd Georgian method of adding a nought at the end I cannot say. It seems to me that the position under the Bill as it now stands is this. You have some tenants with every possible advantage, and you have in the Highlands the dual ownership system. That system is known all over the world as one of the most reactionary, one of the really bad forms of ownership, which you wish to eliminate; as soon as you can. The tenant of the State is a possibility and a direct owner of the land is a possibility, but, where you have the dual system, you have a perfectly impossible system. It is desired in the case of some few thousand holders who are what we call tenant owners to change to the dual ownership system, and this is being done because two Liberal Members wish it. As I understand it, in this particular Clause you have a promise which is being deliberately broken simply because the Government were compelled in Committee to depart from their original intention. I ask the Lord Privy Seal and the Secretary of State for Scotland to accept the Lords Amendment which was in the Bill originally. They will then be simply standing by their original decision. I regret that the Government should be obstinate enough not to accept this Amendment.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 22, at the end, insert

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Amendment of s. 11 of Act of 1911.)

Section eleven of the Act of 1911 shall apply to buildings or other premises erected on a holding by or for a landholder whether a new holder or not, and the said section shall have effect as if the world 'landholder' were substituted for the words 'new holder':

Provided that, where any such buildings or premises were erected prior to the date when the rent payable at the commencement of this Act was fixed by the Land Court or agreed on by the parties, this section shall not operate to transfer from the landlord to the landholder any duty or liability until the arrival of the first term
after the commencement of this Act as from which the rent payable can be altered by agreement or by the Land Court.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should like to say that, in my view, the Government have on this occasion taken the right course. I only hope that their wisdom will extend to some of their back benchers who keep on making unmannerly interruptions.

Mr. SCOTT: We were not consulted in any way with regard to this Clause. We feel considerable apprehension with regard to its effects on landholders in Scotland, and we take no responsibility for it.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, after new Clause A, insert

NEW CLAUSE B.—(Amendment of s. 32 (4) of Act of 1911.)

The following words shall be added at the end of paragraph (4) of section thirty-two of the Act of 1911, "unless he himself shall have given written notice to the landlord that he is to terminate his tenancy."

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Major WOOD: I think that the Government might have put forward some alternative to this Amendment. I understand that the object of it is to prevent the landlord being prejudiced by the tenant giving notice and then perhaps withdrawing the notice. No one has any desire that the landlord should be prejudiced, but I think there is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not have put forward a provision under which the tenant would be prevented from withdrawing his notice when, after notice had been given, something had happened which would prejudice the position of the landlord. If he had re-let it to someone else, it would be a fair thing to say that the tenant should not be allowed to withdraw the notice. But the mere fact that a tenant has given notice should not be a reason why he should be prevented from withdrawing it. If he gives notice and then soon afterwards withdraws it, he cannot have done so very much injury to
the position of the landlord. I am not going to divide the House, but I think it is rather regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman should have seen fit to accept the Amendment.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 22, after new Clause B insert

NEW CLAUSE C.—(Amendment of s. 32 (11) of Act of 1911.)

"Section thirty-two of the Act of 1911 shall be amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (11):—
'(12) It shall be competent to the tenant not later than two months prior to the expiry of the period of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act or of any subsequent period of tenancy and after giving written notice to the landlord to apply to the Land Court to be declared a landholder, and the Land Court shall so find and declare, unless the landlord shall lodge with the Land Court a written application to have it declared that the tenant and his statutory successors in the holding shall have the same rights in all respects to compensation for permanent improvements on renouncing the tenancy or being removed from the holding as if the tenant had been a landholder, and on such application by the landlord the Land Court shall find and declare accordingly.'

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 3, at the end, insert

NEW CLAUSE D.—(Amendment of s. 16 of principal Act.)

"Section sixteen of the principal Act, which deals with the procedure in arbitrations, shall be amended by the omission of the words 'sheep stocks' in subsection (5) and by the addition of the following subsection:—
'(6) After the passing of this Act all valuations of sheep stocks tied to the ground and bound under a lease to be taken over from the outgoing tenant at the termination of a tenancy by the landlord or incoming tenant shall, unless the outgoing tenant and the landlord or incoming tenant otherwise agree, be made by an arbiter selected by the Department out of a panel of arbiters appointed specially for that purpose by the Lord President of the Court of Session after consultation with the Department.'

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir J. GILMOUR: I should like at the outset to say that we have not divided on the whole of these Clauses, but that must not be taken that we do not strongly support the Amendments which have come down from another place. We are now going to discuss a problem which has caused a great deal of controversy in Scotland on the question of the valuation of the sheep stock. There may be differences of opinion as to what is the best solution for a problem of this kind, but I think it is beyond dispute, and those who have followed closely during the past few years what has been going on in the valuation of sheep stock will agree with me, that there has been a considerable number of cases in which a highly fictitious value has been placed on the sheep stock. It is clear that the existing system which, of course, quite properly takes cognisance of acclimatisation value, ought to recognise the fact that sheep stock, from association with certain lands and farms, acquire a peculiar value because of those circumstances, and that they acquire also a health value from the acclimatisation point of view. But the system which has gradually grown up under which there are three individuals—in the first case, one on the side of the proprietor, then one on the side of the tenant, and finally an oversman—and by which that valuation has been arrived at has ceased in existing conditions, in many cases, to take into account at all the kind of real market value of the sheep and has placed it as if it were a thing of no account, and fixed the acclimatisation value out of all proportion to the real value. Whatever we may say about the method of solution of this problem, it is beyond dispute that these are facts well known to the farming community.
I have seen it stated on behalf of the Black Face Sheep Stock Breeders' Association that there is no real ground of complaint. While I was in charge of the Scottish Office, in cases where this has affected the Government and the public taxpayer, there were instances of gross over-valuation. The House knows quite well that this may sometimes be a valuation in favour of the landlord, on the one hand; or, on the other hand, in favour of the tenant; or it may be a case between one tenant and another tenant. All I say about this subject is that there
ought to be some method arrived at in the public interest, in the farming interest, in the interest of the tenant farmer and all concerned, to find some better solution. The other House has suggested that, instead of continuing a system of three arbiters in these cases, it should be a single arbiter. I do not know that the mere fact that you take a single arbiter is going in every circumstance to make so great an alteration as to give a fair and proper valuation. One of the great difficulties—let us be quite frank—that has arisen is that, where you have local arbiters who are closely associated with the peculiar circumstances, brought in, in the great majority of cases they look at it not so much from the real honest valuation point of view. I would only say that I am not myself in favour of breaking existing leases. I would like to see it limited to future leases, but, whether one is going to achieve this break, one thing, I hope, will come out of the discussion, and that is that public opinion in the valuation world in Scotland will realise that there is grave and honest criticism of the circumstances that have been going on in recent years, and, in the judgment of those qualified to judge, and in the judgment of many Members of this House, it shall be said that this system must find some break, and, whether by the method suggested In this Amendment or otherwise, it is high time that these conditions should be no longer continued.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am glad that the Government have taken the attitude that they have taken in regard to this matter. I quite agree with a good deal that the right hon. Member who has just spoken has said. There is no doubt that there have been excessive valuations in recent years. But I am glad to think that, on the whole, these have been the exception. I believe, myself, that the general opinion among agriculturists in Scotland is in favour of maintaining the present system. I think, on the whole, one is justified in arguing that the judgment of three men is generally better than the judgment of one man. The custom has been in the past to employ very practical men. You must remember that all these valuations took place between the outgoing tenant and the incoming tenant and that the outgoing tenant
chooses his arbiter and the incoming tenant chooses his arbiter, and there is still the oversman. If there is a dispute between them, they are at liberty to go, at the present time, to the sheriff of the county. The real trouble has been acclimatisation and its value. But the fact remains that, unless you had acclimatisation stock in the Western parts of Scotland, the land would be quite un-lettable. I have no doubt that the Government have considered this matter very carefully. I have done so myself, and I have come to the conclusion that the Government are taking a wise step, on the whole, in resisting the Amendment.

Mr. SKELTON: I do not seek to say anything offensive when I say that the Government are discussing a matter that makes it unfortunate that this debate is taking place so late in the Parliamentary session. What has already been said would be very useful if it were widely known throughout Scotland. But speeches made at this hour of the night are not very fully reported. [Interruption.] These wild beast cries really do not help the rather serious topic which, of course, is purely Scottish, and therefore quite unknown to urban English Members. I should think that if an urban English Member were asked to describe acclimatisation value, he would be very hard put to it. I rise, not to answer what has been said by my right hon. Friend. He admitted that there were duties connected with it, and he then proceeded to whittle down those duties so that at the end of the day he had convinced himself that the present situation was a perfect one. I do not believe, with the Secretary of State, that the right hon. Gentleman's early opposition gradually disappeared. It changed into the dawn of approval, so far as I know.
I am not surprised that this Amendment has not been accepted by the Government. I definitely associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman in believing that the provision which is in the Amendment, and which would seek to alter the whole of the existing leases, is not one to be recommended to Parliament. I hope very much that we shall not pass from this topic without the Secretary of State, or some of his hon. Friends, saying a word or two on it. It is of immense importance that Scotland
should realise that, in this matter, the three parties are all aware of the fact that things are not entirely as they should be, regarding this type of valuation. Though none of us particularly like the suggested solution in the Amendment which the Government is not going to accept, we all realise that it is a matter for study and that it is of public importance. It is one to which the Government ought to devote attention. I venture to make the suggestion again that we should not pass from this without a word or two from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. ADAMSON: I would like to respond to the appeal that has been made by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton). In doing so, I want to point out that we have gathered agricultural opinion in Scotland, and that agricultural opinion should count most in matters like these. Whatever the opinions of hon. Members, they will agree with me when I say that they have not the qualifications to judge of the disability imposed by a proposal of this kind upon the sheep farmer, as have the agriculturists themselves. So far as I can gather, agricultural opinion in Scotland is opposed to the Clause. The Scottish Chamber of Agriculture is opposed to it, because they think that it is light that a sheep farmer, whose whole capital may be involved, should have a share in the apportionment of the valuation. The Black Faced Sheep Farmers' Association are also opposed to the Clause, and the National Farmers' Union are in agreement with the other two associations that the existing system should be maintained.
Those hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies know that a few years ago the system was changed. That was in 1908. Such an agitation broke out in Scotland among the agriculturists regarding the change that Parliament had to change the system again within two years. It may be perfectly true, as has been pointed out by the former Secretary of State for Scotland, that excessive prices have been paid. What does that lead to? Undoubtedly, the fact that the sheep were tied to the ground in quite a number of instances. If one is to change a system of that kind, one will have to take very great care that existing contracts have run
out. There are men who have come in and have paid excessive prices, and, if this Amendment were given effect to, those men, on going out, would not be compensated for the excessive prices that they paid. You would be breaking contracts in a large number of cases. I think the House would be well-advised to disagree with the Lords.

Mr. MILLAR: This Amendment is not like those that have just been discussed in the House, because the question was raised for the first time in the other House, and I think the House of Commons is entitled to give this matter full consideration, although at this unfortunate hour of the morning we are not in the position to have a very full discussion upon matters that affect very vitally the agriculturists in Scotland. This discussion is not on party lines, but is purely directed towards securing the best possible form of arbitration that will give a fair valuation. Reference has been made to the fact that originally, under the Act of 1908, one single arbitrator was appointed to deal with all arbitrations, including sheep stock and farm crops. That undoubtedly was the system which was then adopted, although there happened to be at the time an agreement between the various parties as to three arbitrators. The system which was brought into effect in 1908, according to the words of the Statute so provided—
Notwithstanding any agreement in the leases, or otherwise, providing for a different method of arbitration.
So that Parliament at that time felt perfectly free to say that it thought that a better system required to be introduced, notwithstanding the existing leases. I agree that it is undesirable to break existing agreements, but one has to keep in view that the purpose here is to secure a fair valuation. The parties have agreed to a valuation. We wish to secure the fairest form of arbitration that will afford security to all parties who are interested in the matter, and to enable them to get justice at the hands of the arbitrator.
It may well be asked, "Has the system worked out well?" I venture to suggest, from some experience and knowledge of the subject, that it has not worked out always fairly, for the reason that no man nowadays is really entitled to be appointed as a judge in a matter in
which he has a personal interest. If this system is to be worked purely through the appointment of sheep farmers who are to settle finally the values that are to be fixed, I say that it is not fair that they should judge matters in which they have a personal interest. I am not attacking the arbitrators, under the system by which they are now called upon to exercise their duties, but merely pointing out that one would never think of appointing a judge to deal with a matter in which he was personally concerned in maintaining a high valuation. There is frequently a very high fictitious value attaching to acclimatisation.
My right hon. Friend in front of me said it was an exception. I have studied the figures carefully, and I have found, in recent years particularly, that they have risen to peak figures or to very high figures, and that it has been a very ordinary course to attach a very high value for acclimatisation purposes to sheep stock. What is the result? It is not in the public interest that this system should continue for this reason. Owing to the uncertainty which has been created by these highly inflated values, the difficulties of getting incoming tenants to take over sheep at these figures are very great. Surely that is a reason why this system should be altered if you cannot to-day get the incoming tenant to take over the sheep at these figures. It is not in the interest of the country that the proprietors should be restricted in the use of their land through the fact that they are unable to meet these values, that they have to sell off part of their stock and in some cases find it impossible to relet their land for the purpose for which it is best suited.
As taxpayers we are also interested in this matter. What is the view of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland on this matter? What is the view of the Forestry Commission? We have had to deal in recent times with a number of transactions that have resulted in enormous loss to the country. I would remind the House of the famous Erriboll case which was discussed in this House on a number of occasions and which resulted in the Government losing £34,000 for the sheep stock taken over in that case owing to the valuation. There is a distinct interest here not only on the part of
the landlord but on the part of the public generally in securing that these valuations shall be fixed on a fair basis. That is all that the Amendment seeks to do. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to accept it in the form in which it is drawn, but the principle of it is that we should get down to a fair basis of valuation, that we should get impartial arbitrators, and that we should get a basis of valuation fixed which will enable us to standardise the elements of value so that they bear some relation to market prices. It will need some elasticity in different districts to apply your standards to different market conditions.
This question is one of simple justice, of fair play, of securing a better system of valuation which will result in advantage to the whole industry. I do not accept the view that the only expression of opinion which the House is entitled to obtain is that of the Sheep Breeders' Association or of any specific organisation, and I have in my hands letters from some of the leaders of agricultural opinion in Scotland on this very subject. One of them points out that, while it is true that sheep farmers as a matter of self interest are interested in maintaining these valuations, there is a growing feeling that there should be some change. He refers to the many statements which appeared in the Scottish farming press pointing out the abuses to which this system had led, and pointing out that there is a strong body of opinion in the country to-day which would favour a more equitable system of valuation. I could refer the right hon. Gentleman to many other cases, including that of a Farmers' Union which only a few weeks ago criticised the effect of the existing system of valuation and stated how desirable it was that the figures should be made public in certain notorious cases so that the public should realise the facts. It is a very difficult thing to justify valuations, which may fix an average of something like 100s. or more per ewe and lamb at Whit Sunday when at a later period in the autumn the same stock will only fetch 50s. or 60s., though in the interval they ought to have increased in value.
I am quoting facts and the noble Lord who dealt with the matter in another place quoted a number of facts and figures which are capable of being sub-
stantiated. I want no element of exaggeration to enter into this matter, but I say that there is a distinct feeling of dissatisfaction in Scotland to-day about the present system of sheep valuations. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, whatever his view in this matter may be, will give us some undertaking that it will be further considered by the Department of Agriculture, the Forestry Commissioners, and all the other bodies interested so as to secure a better system of valuation.

Mr. KINLEY: I do not want to pose as an expert on sheep farming, but I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the back benchers on his own side for resisting this Amendment. I also want to congratulate the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar), who is drifting in the right direction. He has been stating the interests of those responsible for moving the Amendment in another place. He is not addressing the House as a Liberal, but as a landlord.

Mr. MILLAR: I hope the hon. Member will not do me the injustice of repeating the remarks he has made. I argued this case right through purely because I regarded it as a case of affording justice to all parties.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. KINLEY: My personal feeling about the whole proceedings is that the sheep farmers who are affected had the courtesy to send a deputation to this House to interview the parties, but those responsible for the Amendment in another place, have been nameless so far. The Amendment was supported by the landlords simply because the valuation has been operating against the landed proprietors. The machinery has been operating against them. Here we have protests against three arbiters determining what the value is to be. At least one of the three is an honest person, while there are no sheep farmers in my constituency, I want to protest against the insinuation that those who act as valuers on the part of the incoming and outgoing tenants are dishonest and place fictitious values on the subjects they are called upon to value. I hope the Noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Earl of Dalkeith), when he
speaks again, will be good enough to tell us that he is speaking on behalf of the landed proprietors of Scotland and not try to camouflage the position.

Major DUDGEON: On general lines, I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) that there is room for a certain amount of improvement in the present system, but I do not think it is fair and just, as a general rule, to state that fictitious values have been placed on sheep stocks in Scotland. To bring in a system to upset the valuer coming in to place an acclimatisation value upon any particular sheep farm would be disastrous. It is absolutely essential that those valuing sheep stock should have an intimate knowledge, not only of the class of stock, but of the traditions and history of the holding. That is the only possible way in which you can arrive at a true acclimatisation value. If I might be permitted to make a suggestion, there should be some method of having a fixed acclimatisation value. It might be fixed at 50, 60 or 75 per cent., with, in addition, the current value of the sheep stock. If such a system was arrived at, it would overcome a great deal of the difficulties and criticisms we hear now of fictitious values. If careful inquiries were made as to the history of each valuation, an acclimatisation value might be fixed for all time, and then valuers would arrive at a valuation of the sheep stock on current values plus the acclimatisation value.
The system in Scotland has on the whole worked well enough. You have three valuers—one for the incoming tenant, one for the outgoing tenant, and the oversman who has to adjust their valuation in the last case. I think in the great majority of sheep stock valuations a fair market value has been arrived at. I have seen a number of these valuations, and great care has been taken, not only in fixing the market value, but in deducting from the sum the expenses of marketing the sheep. The most careful inquiries have been made as to the history of the particular holding—the death-rate which has taken place from time to time and, in the case of re-stocking at any time, the death-rate after re-stocking. I think the language of general criticisms is very unfair with regard to the system of valuation which has obtained in Scotland for
a long time and the valuers, for in the great majority of case they have well and earnestly done their work.

Earl of DALKEITH: The last two speeches show clearly how important it is that this subject should be fully discussed. I hardly expected the Government would accept the new Clause. I regret that we have not had an opportunity to go into the matter more completely and bring out certain questions on which there has been cause for grievance. We also want to avoid the hardship which has arisen during the last 12 years. This is not a question which arises in the South of Scotland. There most cases are settled satisfactorily without any trouble. There is no doubt several individual owners have been badly hit by the sums they have been obliged to pay, and have had heavy losses which have been unavoidable. The same is true of the Forestry Commission and the Department of Agriculture. It is very important that the matter should be fully thrashed out and given publicity.
The hon. Member for Partick (Mr. McKinlay) seemed to think that I was going to speak for the landlords and push this matter before the House. I intend to support the sheep societies and the National Farmers' Union in Scotland, and not oppose them on this point, because they have expressed their views about it. I still think it is a question that deserves every consideration. I appreciate the friendly attitude of the deputation from the sheep breeding societies and the representatives of the tenant farmers and the way in which they expressed their views on this subject, as well as the statement that they themselves thought the valuers had no intention or desire to overcharge owners to the advantage of their tenants. I think the assurance on this point is very valuable. I also think their suggestion that any future action or change should be by agreement, and that there should be a meeting between the tenants and proprietors in Scotland, is a very sound one. I hope it will be carried out. After all, the owners and tenants of agricultural land in Scotland have, in most cases, great political and economic difficulties, and it is far better they should get together in cases of this kind and settle their difficulties, where possible,
without Parliamentary action. For these reasons, I do not intend to press the Amendment.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(PART I: Improvements to which Consent of Landlord is required. PART II: Improvements in respect of which Notice to Landlord is required. PART III: Improvements in respect of which Consent of or Notice to Landlord is not required.)

First Schedule.—Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 14, line 30, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 30, at the end, insert:
(18) The eradication of bracken, whins or gorse growing on a holding at the commencement of a tenancy.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the Amendment in line 11, page 15, mean that the tenant should give notice of his intention to the landlord and that the right of appeal to the Department is brought in. The Amendment in my opinion should not be agreed to. The eradication of bracken is an object to be undertaken when the opportunity offers.

Mr. SKELTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest what the suitable opportunity is?

Mr. ADAMSON: I was just going to explain what was in my mind. If the tenant has to serve notice on the landlord, he will not be able to utilise the numerous opportunities that come to a holder to eradicate bracken. Notwithstanding the merriment that this Amendment gives to the House, I want to say, and I think my Scottish colleagues will agree with me, that one of the great nuisances that agriculturists in Scotland have to contend with is bracken. In my opinion, no difficulties should be placed in the way of parties who are prepared to eradicate bracken.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not opposing the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am constrained to say that
the eradication of this noxious weed is not the simple problem that he indicated. If the right hon. Gentleman and his Department will go further into the investigations for the eradication of this weed, all I will say is that I think that those who put down this Amendment in another place had in view the fact that it might be necessary to use chemicals to eradicate it.

Mr. SCOTT: We on these benches cordially support the Government in resisting this Lords Amendment in dealing with the plant referred to. I do not think it is right to impose the burden on the farmers that, before they can eradicate this plant, they should send a letter to the landlord intimating that they are going to do it.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I want to know what is really meant by the eradication of this particular weed. If you wish entirely to eliminate bracken, surely it is best to pass the Amendment. I do not think that any reasonable landlord would take any objection whatever to the destruction of bracken. It is obviously needed in the whole of the West Highlands. If you do it so that the landlords and the tenants are co-operating in the elimination of the particular weed, you are in a very much stronger position. The Government have been rather foolish not to accept this Amendment.

Earl of DALKEITH: This is a matter in which co-operation is desirable between the owners and the tenants. It would be very simple for the tenant to co-operate with the owner on the steps to be taken for the destruction of whins or bracken. I have had a great deal of experience in this matter, and I have seen cases where people, without knowledge, have made matters very much worse instead of improving them. I think that this is an Amendment that the Government should accept.

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 14, at the end insert:
(25) Application to land of purchased artificial or other purchased manure.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is purely drafting and consequential.

Major WOOD: What is the object in transferring these two lines?

Mr. ADAMSON: It is simply in order to put the numbers right. It is purely drafting.

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of Mr. Adamson, Mr. Westwood, Sir Frederick Thomson, Mr. Skelton, and Mr. Scott.

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Adamson.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Adamson.]

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1929.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir R. YOUNG in the Chair.]

I. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1930, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £249,13912s.3d., namely:—




£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
948,031
19
10


Total Deficits
…
698,892
7
7


Net Surplus
…
£249,139
12
3

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make

SCHEDULE-I.


No. of Vote.
Army Services, 1929, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Army
—
309,889
6
9
180,835
18
10
—


2
Territorial Army and Reserve Forces.
—
—
123,491
0
2
6,995
6
5


3
Medical Services
—
—
30,431
13
0
3,742
18
1


4
Educational Establishments
—
4,297
9
1
27,585
4
2
—


5
Quartering and Movements
6,923
15
2
18,835
3
7
—
—


6
Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts.
20,303
16
9
—
—
11,288
0
3


7
Clothing
32,973
6
3
—
—
27,589
9
10


8
General Stores
—
—
64,796
6
6
43,208
2
7


9
Warlike Stores
—
1,948
14
10
42,963
10
5
—


10
Works, Buildings, and Lands
39,231
3
10
—
—
92,228
18
1


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services.
—
—
4,013
3
6
188,779
11
9


12
War Office
—
—
2,830
0
2
3,177
10
4


13
Half-Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers.
—
65,591
15
6
94,055
5
9
—


14
Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, Men, and others.
74,036
11
11
118,399
8
7
—
—


15
Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Gratuities.
1,741
5
0
93
18
1
—
—


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
4,626
12
3
—
—
—




179,836
11
2
519,055
16
5
571,022
2
6
377,009
17
4




Total Deficits £698,892
7
7
Total Surpluses £948,031
19
10




Net Surplus £249,139 12 3

II. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1930, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net Expenditure is £79,435 13s. 4d., namely:—




£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
147,742
0
3


Total Deficits
…
68,306
6
11


Net Surplus
…
£79,435
13
4

good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.

1. Resolved,
That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Mr. Shaw.]

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.

2. Resolved,
That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Mr. Montague.]

SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote.
Air services, 1929, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Air Force
—
—
33,204
9
9
5,382
4
10


2
Quartering Stores (except Technical) Supplies, and Transport.
—
531
2
8
5,941
15
3
—


3
Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services).
12,506
3
11
1,827
4
5
—
—


4
Works, Buildings, and Lands
25,032
1
9
—
—
36,489
11
4


5
Medical Services
—
—
21,871
16
7
4,207
12
4


6
Educational Services
—
—
22,411
19
11
336
14
8


7
Auxiliary and Reserve Forces
24,317
14
9
—
—
1,476
2
0


8
Civil Aviation
—
1,707
10
5
3,723
10
3
—


9
Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services.
—
—
3,769
15
0
2,764
5
1


10
Air Ministry
—
—
1,437
10
10
1,624
14
2


11
Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-effective Services.
—
—
2,834
9
3
265
9
0


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
2,384
9
0
—
—
—




64,240
9
5
4,065
17
6
95,195
6
10
52,546
13
5




Total Deficits £68,306
6
11
Total Surpluses £ 147,742
0
3




Net Surplus £79,435 13 4

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the North Middlesex Gas Company, which was presented on the 22nd day of June and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Four o'Clock, a.m.